Complete First Amended Complaint - Savannah Jackson - 4-18

1 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Emmanuel F. Fobi (SBN: 210764) LAW OFFICE OF EMMANUEL F. FOBI 309 SOUTH A STREET Oxnard, CA 93030 Tel: (805) 240-2655 Fax: (805) 483-1536 Attorney for Plaintiff Savannah Ally Jackson

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF INYO

Savannah Ally Jackson, an individual, Plaintiff; v.

DECISION ONE MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, a business entity, form unknown; AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, a Business entity, form unknown; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., a Business entity, form unknown; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2, a business entity, form unknown; NDEX WEST, LLC, a business entity, form unknown, SERVICELINK, a Division of CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association; Steven C. Porter, an individual; Cheryl L. Asher, an individual; Anne Neely, an individual; Stephanie C. Porter, an individual; Esther Jean Hernandez, an individual; Randy Middleton, an individual; China Brown, an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive;

Defendants.

Case No: SI CV CV 1051088 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good

Faith And Fair Dealing; 2. Wrongful Foreclosure, (California Civil

Code §2924 Et Seq.) 3. To Set Aside Unlwaful Transfer; 4. Tortious Interference With A Contract; 5. Violations Of The Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 Et Seq.), 6. Failure To Give Proper Notice Of Default,

Right To Cure And Acceleration Notice, (Violation Of 12 U.S. C. §§ 2601 Et Seq., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, Et Seq. And Title 12 C.F.R., § 226.18, California Civil Code § 2924 Et Seq.);

7. Violation Of California Unfair Competetion Law, (California Business And Professions Code §§ 17200 Et Seq.)

8. Violation Of California Business And Professions Code § 17500

CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

1. This is an action for violations of numerous California State and Federal laws and

contractual rights of the Plaintiff which resulted in damage to the Plaintiff. The actions of the

Defendants relating to the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust purportedly securing her property to

the condition of her repayment stated in that Promissory Note, and the non-judicial foreclosure

effectuated on the Plaintiff and her property constitute unfair trade practices, and wilful, intentional

wrongful and illegal conduct which require this Court’s intervention

2. Plaintiff, Savannah Ally Jackson, by and through her attorney of record, Emmanuel

F. Fobi, SBN 210764, alleges the following, on information and belief:

I. PARTIES

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Savannah Ally Jackson, (formerly

known as “Alyson J. Denk”), (“Plaintiff”) was a resident of Inyo County located in the State of

California, was a citizen of the United States of America, and was/is an individual residing at a

residential home, legally described as:

THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 PAGE 30 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY

A.P.N.: 001-105-06, which currently has the address of 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CA 93514

(the “Subject Property”).

4. Defendant DECISION ONE is believed to be a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of North Carolina, whose current address is believed to be 3023 HSBC Way, Fort

Mill, South Carolina 29715.

3 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant DECISION ONE MORTGAGE

COMPANY, LLC, (“DECISION ONE”), was the entity purported to be the “lender” on the

Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and Promissory Note.

6. Defendant DECISION ONE is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation

organized and operated under the laws of the State of North Carolina.

7. Defendant DECISION ONE’s true name and any other capacity are not currently

known beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add

those facts when ascertained.

8. Defendant AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, (“ASC”), is believed to be a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff

who’s corporate headquarters are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

9. Defendant ASC was the purported “servicer” on the Plaintiff’s alleged refinance

loan. Without any evidence of a change to a different position, Defendant ASC was falsely and

fraudulently touted as the “creditor” and “beneficiary” of the Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust

Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell.

10. Defendant ASC refused to communicate with the Plaintiff, failed to properly

respond to multiple Qualified Written Requests, and stonewalled every attempt by the Plaintiff to

work out a loan modification based on the fact that the loan product she was put in had terms and

conditions so one-sided and onerous, as to be illegal.

11. Defendant ASC is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation.

12. Defendant ASC’s true name and any other capacity are not currently known beyond

this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts when

ascertained.

4 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Inc.

(“MERS”), has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an

address of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, Michigan 48501-2026. Defendant MERS is a foreign corporation

with relation to The State of California, and until July of 2010, was not registered to do business in

this State.

14. Defendant MERS is listed as the “nominee” beneficiary on the Plaintiff’s Deed of

Trust. The true nature of what this meant, why MERS was involved to facilitate the securitization

of the Plaintiff’s Promissory Note, and the resulting legal quagmire played out on the Official

Land Records of every single county recorder’s office in the country was never fully disclosed to

the Plaintiff.

15. Defendant MERS is also later evidenced as having executed an Assignment of the

Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust to Defendant DEUTSCHE. This was done by an individual

claiming to be the Assistant Vice President of Defendant MERS signing that assignment, even

though MERS former CEO admitted in testimony given under oath that MERS has no employees.

16. Defendant MERS executed that “Assignment” in exchange for “VALUE” from

Defendant DEUTSCHE. MERS has executed millions of these assignments, including the one in

this case, all without paying a single cent in California State taxes, despite millions of these

assignments stating on the face of the document that MERS executed the assignment, “FOR

VALUE RECEIVED”.

17. Defendant MERS has transacted business throughout the State of California,

including the County of Inyo, specifically by selling to be right, title and interest in the Plaintiff

and others Promissory Notes and the Deeds of Trusts through these “assignments.” Until July of

2010, this was done by MERS without MERS having a Certificate of Qualification issued from the

5 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Secretary of State for Defendant MERS, (an admitted “foreign” corporation) to legally do business

in this State. MERS’ “failure to register” was to effectuate its actual purpose – facilitating the

evasion of multiple forms of California State taxes.

18. Under California Law, the assignment in this case is void for MERS’ failure to pay

the requisite taxes.

19. Defendant MERS is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation organized and

operated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

20. Defendant MERS’ true name and any other capacity are not currently known

beyond this and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts

when ascertained.

21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET SECURITIZATION

CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2, (“DEUTSCHE”), a business entity, form unknown; has been

a corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff,

who is believed to have the current address of 1761 E Saint Andrew PL, Santa Ana CA 92705-

4934.

22. Defendant DEUTSCHE substituted out the Trustee on the Plaintiff’s DOT and

substituted in Defendant NDEx prior to Defendant DEUTSCHE even appearing to attain

“beneficiary” status on the Plaintiff’s DOT. After this, Defendant DEUTSCHE allegedly obtained

the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT via an assignment from Defendant

MERS which is actually “void” under California Law for MERS’ failure to pay State taxes.

23. Defendant DEUTSCHE then directed the substituted Trustee, Defendant NDEx, to

execute, record and mail a Notice of Trustee’s Sale. Following that, a Trustee’s Sale was held

6 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

where DEUTSCHE claimed to be the foreclosing beneficiary and the grantee, receiving the

property via “credit bid” for $212,500.

24. That sale was subsequently rescinded, and DEUTSCHE directed NDEx to issue

another NOTS and hold another sale. At that second sale, Defendant DEUTSCHE was listed as

the grantee and as the beneficiary. Defendant DEUTSCHE became the grantee via a “Credit Bid”

in the amount of $199,750, and the documentary transfer tax fees were stated to be “n/a”.

25. Thereafter, Defendant DEUTSCHE proceeded against the Plaintiff with an

Unlawful Detainer complaint, which is currently in progress in Inyo County Superior Court.

26. Defendant DEUTSCHE is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation.

27. Defendant DEUTSCHE’s true name and any other capacity are not currently known

beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts

when ascertained.

28. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

(“WFB”), was a National Association organized and existing under the National Bank Act, who is

believed to have its corporate headquarters located at 420 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA

94163.

29. Acting as the Attorney in Fact for Defendant DEUTSCHE, Defendant WFB

directed one of its agents to execute a document substituting out the Trustee on the Plaintiff’s Deed

of Trust.

30. Defendant WFB is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation rather than a

National Association under the protection of the National Bank Act.

7 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. Defendant WFB’s true name and any other capacity are not currently known


when ascertained.

32. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant NDEx WEST, LLC, (“NDEx”),

was business entity, form unknown, has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws

of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff, whose address is believed to have the business

address of 15000 Surveyor Blvd, Suite 100, Addison, TX 75001.

33. Defendant NDEx was listed as the “c/o” entity for Defendant ASC on the Notice of

Default. Defendant NDEx is also the entity who Defendants DEUTSCHE and WELLS FARGO

substituted in as the Trustee on the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, executed the Notice of Trustee’s Sale

and requested it to be recorded, was an integral part of Defendant DEUTSCHE’S exercise of the

power of sale clause in the DOT, and was stated to be the Trustee on the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust

before, throughout and after both Trustee’s Sales.

34. Defendant NDEx is therefore sued in its capacity as a Limited Liability Company.

35. Defendant NDEx’s true name and any other capacity are not currently known


when ascertained.

36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant SERVICELINK,

(“SERVICELINK”), a Division of CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, has been a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff,

whose address is currently unknown.

8 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. Despite obvious facial fraud and flaws in the NOD, SOT, ADOT, both NOTS’s and

both TDUS’s, Defendant SERVICELINK caused the NOD, SOT, ADOT, and both NOTS’s to be

recorded in the ICRO.

38. Defendant SERVICELINK’s true name and any other capacity are not currently

known beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add

those facts when ascertained.

39. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to the specific allegations against

Cheryl L. Asher, (“Asher”), Defendant Asher was an individual who purportedly acted in an

authorized capacity for Defendant NDEx on February 12, 2009, by affixing her signature to

Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell.

40. Defendant Asher is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory

and/or representative for NDEx, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of the

United States of America.


China Brown, (“Brown”), Defendant Brown was an individual acting on behalf of Defendant ASC

on February 11, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default

Declaration Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.5.

42. Defendant Brown is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized

signatory and/or representative for Defendant ASC, and in her private and individual capacity as a

citizen of the United States of America.


Anne Neely, (“Neely”), Defendant Neely was an individual claiming to be “VP of Loan Doc” for

Defendant WFB, and she is believed to have acted in an authorized capacity for Defendant WFB

9 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on March 16, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit 5 herein, the Substitution of Trustee

document which substituted out the original Trustee on the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, and

substituted in Defendant NDEx as the Trustee.

44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Neely was not

actually an authorized signatory for Defendant WFB, rather, was falsely and fraudulently

perpetrating as one.

45. Defendant Neely is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory

and/or representative for Defendant WFB, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of

the United States of America.


Stephanie C. Porter, (“Porter”), Defendant Porter was an individual believed to have acted in an

authorized capacity for Defendant MERS on March 19, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit

7 herein, the Assignment of Deed of Trust on behalf of Defendant MERS, which purported to

transfer all right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and Promissory Note from

Defendant MERS to Defendant DEUTSCHE.

47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter was not

actually an authorized signatory for Defendant MERS, rather, was falsely and fraudulently

perpetrating as one.

48. Defendant Porter is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory

and representative of Defendant MERS, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of

the United States of America.

10 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant to the

specific allegations against Esther Jean Hernandez, (“Hernandez”), Defendant Hernandez was a

Notary Public, registered in the State of Texas, Commission Expiring February 2, 2011.

50. Defendant Hernandez was an individual who purportedly acted in her official

capacity as a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas when affixing her official seal and

signature to Exhibit 7 herein, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, on March 19, 2009.

51. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandez

falsely authenticated Defendant Porter’s signature as being authorized to act in a signatory capacity

for Defendant MERS on the March 19, 2009, ADOT, and further believes that document is void

for such.

52. Defendant Hernandez is therefore sued in both her Public and Official capacity as a

Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen

of the Untied States of America.


Randy Middleton, (“Middleton”), Defendant Middleton was an individual falsely and fraudulently

acting on behalf of Defendant NDEx on January 13, 2010, by affixing his signature to Exhibits 8,

9, 13, and 14 herein, both Notices of Trustee’s Sale and both Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale.

54. Defendant Middleton is therefore sued in his official capacity as an authorized

signatory and/or representative for Defendant NDEx, and in her private and individual capacity as

a citizen of the United States of America.

55. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities or capacities, whether individual,

corporate, associate or otherwise, of those Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive. Plaintiff therefore sues those Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask

11 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

leave of court to amend this complaint to set forth the names and capacities of these Defendants

when they are ascertained.

56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein

mentioned, the Defendants sued herein and DOES 1 though 10, inclusive, and each of them are in

some way responsible for the acts and events complained of herein and proximately caused

injuries and damages to Plaintiff which are described in this Complaint.

57. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that only where specifically

stated or implicated or implied, each of the Defendants was the employer, employee, agent,

assignee, grantee and/or successor of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter

alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment and capacity.

58. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to more specifically set

forth the wrongful conduct of all named and unnamed Defendants when it has been ascertained.

59. Whenever an act or omission of a corporation or business entity is alleged in this

Complaint, the allegation shall be deemed to mean and include an allegation that the corporation or

business entity acted or omitted to act through its authorized officers, directors, agents, servants,

and/or employees, acting within the course and scope of her duties, that the act or omission was

authorized by corporate managerial officers or directors, and that the act or omission was ratified

by the officers and directors of the corporation or business entity.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

60. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

because this action is between parties that are citizens of different states and the amount in

controversy is greater than $75,000, and under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“FDCPA”), §§ 1692 et seq. to obtain monetary civil penalties and injunctive relief.

12 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a national bank is a citizen of the state

designated as its main office on its organization certificate. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546

U.S. 303, 306 (2006).

62. Defendant MERS is, on information and belief, a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, in accordance with the provisions of Section

151(g) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

63. Defendant DECISION ONE is, on information and belief, a citizen of the State of

Delaware or the State of North Carolina, but not the State of California.

64. The Plaintiff, Savanna Ally Jackson, is a citizen of The State of California.

65. Plaintiff also invokes this Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§1367.

66. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) inasmuch as the

unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed in this District, Defendants regularly

conduct their business in this District, the named Plaintiff resides in this District, and the Subject

Property is located in this District.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. THE ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTION

67. On or about October 26, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a purported consumer

mortgage transaction with Defendant DECISION ONE to refinance an alleged preexisting first

mortgage.

68. The $304,500 purported loan from Defendant DECISION ONE was claimed to be

a Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan (“Purported Loan”), consummated by Plaintiff through

the alleged execution of an Interest Only Adjustable Rate Note (“Note”), (Exhibit 1), together

13 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with a “Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider” (“Rider”) (Exhibit 2), and claimed to be secured by a first

Deed of Trust (“DOT”) (Exhibit 3) on the Plaintiff’s home – the Subject Property.

69. Since the Purported Loan allegedly involves a refinancing of the Plaintiff’

principal dwelling, the purpose of which was for personal, household and family use, it was made

subject to rescission pursuant to the Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC § 1635 and § 1640

(TILA), Regulation Z § 226.23 (Reg. Z).

70. The Note and DOT documents constitute “contracts” between the Plaintiff and

Defendant DECISION ONE.

71. The Rider was attached to the back of the DOT, and on November 30, 2006, the

Rider and DOT were recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office as Document Number 2006-

0004926.

72. At the time Plaintiff executed the Note, she did not realize that Defendant

DECISION ONE had not given consideration under California Civil Code §3391 to her prior to

her actual signing of the Note despite the fact that the Note specifically states: “In return for a

loan that I have received, I promise to pay . . . , plus interest, to the order of Lender.”

73. In addition to the above, this language falsely implies defendant DECISION ONE

actually paid consideration in the form of loaning money to the Plaintiff out of its own stocks,

bonds, and/or assets, prior to the Plaintiff signing the Note, and thereby putting its own capital at

risk as the Plaintiff was putting her home at risk as consideration for the consummation of this

transaction.

74. Defendant DECISION ONE falsely claims to have paid consideration, and to make

defendant DECISION ONE’s claim of having paid consideration an even greater

14 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misrepresentation, Banks are constitutionally prohibited from lending credit pursuant to U.S.

Const. Art. 1, § 10, Cl. 1.

75. The alleged loan has no substance and was created to give the effect that

Defendant DECISION ONE gave something of intrinsic value in exchange for the Plaintiff’ Note.

However, it is not legal for Defendant DECISION ONE to (1) emit a bill of credit (See U.S.

Const. Art. 1, § 10, Cl. 1) and (2) loan anything of intrinsic value, i.e. gold or silver (See HJR

192).

76. To date, there has been no evidence presented publicly, or privately which shows

that Defendant DECISION ONE actually ever “loaned” the Plaintiff any of its own stocks, bonds,

or assets, or whether Defendant DECISION ONE was simply a “broker” who accepted the

Plaintiff’s Promissory Note, had her execute a Deed of Trust on her home, then pre-sold her

“loan” to the secondary market, providing the alleged “funds” of $304,500 through such sale to

the secondary market.

77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that would reduce Defendant

DECISION ONE from a true “lender” and originator of the funds, down to a mere “broker” who

was actually in the middle of the Plaintiff and the entity/entities who actually originated the funds

for this alleged “loan”.

78. Before, during and/or after the settlement, Defendants failed and/or refused to

provide Plaintiff with copies of important documents, including the complete mortgage and Note,

which would explain their consumer rights, as well as other rights, including but not limited to, the

right to cancel the contract and the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosures.

79. Defendants also intentionally failed and/or refused to provide Plaintiff various

disclosures that would indicate to Plaintiff that the contract entered into was unconscionable,

15 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

illegal and void. For instance, Defendants failed to disclose that the loan obtained had an interest

rate higher than stated and in the preliminary disclosures, which preliminary disclosures were

never given.

80. The Defendants attorney and/or settlement officer did not furnish defendant with

copies of numerous important settlement documents, ever in the loans history.

B. THE “ORIGINAL” STATED PARTIES INVOLVED AND MERS’ ROLE

81. In this alleged consumer mortgage refinance transaction, Defendant DECISION

ONE was claimed to be the “Lender” and the Plaintiff was claimed to be the “Borrower”. Exhibit

1 at 1; Exhibit 2 at 1; Exhibit 3 at 1.

82. “CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY” was claimed to be the “Trustee”. Exhibit 3 at 1.

83. According to the DOT, Defendant MERS “is the beneficiary under [the DOT].”

Exhibit 3 at 1.

84. Neither the acronym “MERS,” nor the full name, “MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,” nor any variations thereof are included in the Note or

Rider.

85. The Note stated that the monthly payments on the alleged loan were to be made

3023 HSBC Way, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715. Exhibit 1 at 1.

86. The DOT lists “3023 HSBC Way, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715” as the address

for the “Lender,” Defendant DECISION ONE. Exhibit 3 at 1.

87. There are no documents on record which list Defendant MERS as the entity to

which monthly payments on the alleged loan are to be directed.

88. There are no documents on record which list Defendant MERS’ address as the one

that monthly payments on the alleged loan should be directed to.

16 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89. There are no documents on record which state that Defendant MERS is the entity

entitled to the monthly payments on the alleged loan.

90. There are no documents on record which state that Defendant MERS is the entity

entitled to the proceeds stemming from any sale of the Subject Property conducted to satisfy any

obligation pursuant to the Note and Rider.

91. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS is not

the entity to which monthly payments were ever to be directed.

92. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS’

address is not the address to which monthly payments on the alleged loan were ever directed to.


entitled to any monthly payments on the alleged loan.


and was never entitled to any proceeds stemming from any sale of the Subject Property conducted

to satisfy any obligation pursuant to the Note and Rider.

95. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that entitlement to payment

under an instrument is a basic prerequisite to being a “beneficiary” and “Note Holder” under that

instrument.

96. The definition of “Note Holder” given in the language of the note itself is “[t]he

Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under

this Note is called the “Note Holder”. Exhibit 1, §1.

97. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS has

absolutely no authority of a “Note Holder” with regard to the Plaintiff’s Promissory Note. As

17 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

such, MERS has no authority as a true beneficiary of the DOT and is the beneficiary under the

DOT in name only, as a shell to effectuate local, state and federal taxes.

98. AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY (“ASC”) was stated to be the “Servicer”

of the Plaintiff’s purported refinance mortgage loan package. Later, with no documentation

supporting such claims, ASC purported to be the creditor and beneficiary on the Plaintiff’s Note

and DOT contracts in the Notice of Default document.

C. UNCONSCIONABILITY OF DEED OF TRUST

99. For the Note and DOT contracts to be consummated, the language of the Note

contract required the Plaintiff to agree that, “Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title

to the Property . . .”. Exhibit 3 at 3.

100. In direct contradiction of this, the language of the DOT contract defines the

condition of the title upon the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of all her contractual requirements and

obligations under the Note and DOT contracts. Regarding the condition of the Title of the

Subject Property when transferring from the alleged lender back to the borrower, the DOT states,

“Trustee shall reconvey the Property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled

to it . . . . “ Exhibit 3 at 12, §23. (Emphasis added).

101. The Plaintiff did not have a full understanding of the true nature of these phrases,

the reasons for them, and the legal effect of such contractual language.

102. The Promissory Note and the DOT were both “adhesion” contracts, proposed to

the Plaintiff on a take-it or leave-it basis. The Plaintiff did not have a choice to require the

purported “lender,” Defendant DECISION ONE, to “warranty” the title back to her in the

contractual language upon her satisfaction of the purported loan.

D. THE LOAN MODIFICATION PROCESS

18 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

103. The Plaintiff, in signing the Promissory Note, promised to make all payments to

the “Note Holder” on time. The Plaintiff made 3 payments to Defendant DECISION ONE before

she was noticed of a new servicer, Defendant ASC, a Division of Defendant WFB, to begin

sending her monthly mortgage payments to.

104. The Plaintiff was current and on time, with a perfect payment history record and a

credit rating that was up, until October 2008, when the economy slowed down over the course of

the year and the Plaintiff had completely exhausted all savings and asset accounts. At that point,

the payment schedule was beyond what her current financial status could tolerate.

105. In June of 2008, the Plaintiff made numerous phone calls to her “servicer” ASC to

inquire about getting some sort of help or restructuring of her loan because she was having

employment and financial hardships and she wished to continue to make payments but could not

afford the payment of $2210.00 each month. This was prior to October and prior to being unable

to make payments.

106. The Plaintiff temporarily moved to Los Angeles in June 2008, to attempt to

remedy her current financial hardship, and relocate to a place where she thought she would have

plenty of work without the travel expenses. She thought she could rent her home out in Bishop to

cover part of the mortgage while she worked to cover the remainder of the mortgage and rent

costs in Los Angeles, she had not had to work this much nor consider relocating in her entire

residence in Bishop since 2003.

107. The Plaintiff at this point began researching the best possible way to return to

honor and save her home. In January of 2009, the Plaintiff, began employment at the Federal

Loan Modification Law Center (FLM) where she counseled hundreds of distressed homeowners

across the country. She also learned many of the predatory lending practices which are in place

19 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

today that led to our massive destruction of economy utilizing “Mortgage Backed Securities” and

the current Home Loan market climate.

108. As an employee of FLM Law Center, and seeing the impending crisis she

personally was facing, she inquired about getting herself into a loan modification through FLM so

as to avoid foreclosure, as she had not made a payment for 3 months.

109. The Plaintiff learned there had been a moratorium on foreclosures which had been

approved by California Legislation in February 2008 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, which gave

distressed homeowners an additional 90 days to work out a remedy for their situations.

110. The Plaintiff received the Notice of Default and Election to Sell in February of

2009, after she had attempted numerous times to get some sort of help with her loan prior to going

into default. She was told by ASC that they would not assist her until she was at least 2 months in

Default.

111. The Plaintiff sent all paperwork for a loan modification to ASC though the FLM

Law Center in order to begin the modification process, hopefully to get herself into a lower

interest rate, a longer loan term, a forbearance, or a “stair-step” program which would give her a

few years to recover financially and begin making payments normally again.

112. The Plaintiff worked for FLM until they went out of business in March 2009.

Leading up to the company’s failure, the Attorney General extensively investigated FLM,

approved them to continue business, but their ACH transacting bank would not allow them to

operate with their prior emergency fund amounts, and froze their accounts indefinitely. As a

result, The Plaintiff took her loan modification into her own hands and no longer was under their

employ.

20 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

113. The Plaintiff took her loan modification into her own hands when she received a

Notice of Trustee’s Sale which informed her the sale was set for June 2 2009, even after all of her

modification paperwork had been submitted to and received by ASC in March 2009.

114. The Plaintiff, at his time started doing extensive research into all the moving parts

of her ‘loan’ and the Trustees, Note Holders and who each party was playing a part. So far the list

included Defendants NDEx, MERS, DEUTSCHE, DECISION ONE, ASC, and numerous

individuals signing on behalf of these companies.

115. The Plaintiff found after numerous phone calls, internet research and questioning

of these entities that Defendant DEUTSCHE was claimed to be the loan holder, Defendant

DECISION ONE was claimed to be the Note Holder and Defendant NDEx was the foreclosure

attorney for ASC, who was the servicer. All of this sounded more than questionable, especially

given the current mortgage crisis, and the Plaintiff wondered how each of these entities was

profiting as a result of her being the Trustor/Grantor/Settlor of the Security.

116. The Plaintiff frantically resubmitted all paperwork to avoid the impending sale

date, and narrowly missed the date by 3 days, because over the previous two months, the Plaintiff

had to call ASC every 3-4 days to ask them if they had all of the correct paperwork and

information they needed to start the modification approval process. She never received any phone

calls or letters from them saying information was missing or needed to be updated, it seemed they

were intentionally wanting her to misstep and lose her home.

117. When she finally got all of the correct information to them, ASC postponed the

Trustee sale for 30 days while they reviewed the loan modification paperwork. This went on each

and every 30 day period, until August 2009. The Plaintiff had to call the County recorder’s office

21 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and the Inyo Mono Title Company to make sure the house wasn’t being put up for sale, they told

her that sometimes the lender called them the morning of the sale to cancel the sale.

118. The Plaintiff got a distressed phone call from the family renting her home in

Bishop, that they received a Notice of Trustee’s Sale posted on the door. Despite the Plaintiff’s

reassurances that she was in the process of a loan modification, the renter’s moved out 2 weeks

later May 25th 2009.

119. The Plaintiff was incredibly stressed as she had no way to afford both rents for

herself in Los Angeles and the now empty home in Bishop, she even offered for her renters to

stay for free a month or two until the Foreclosure threat passed, and they could stay without

concern, as the loan modification would be underway, they declined, and she was left with a very

bad financial situation.

120. The Plaintiff asked a few friends to stay at her home so the locks would not be

changed, or possession of the property taken over until the Plaintiff could figure out what to do. n

August of 2009, the Plaintiff received a phone call from the friend’s house sitting for her, (as the

Plaintiff was still temporary staying in Los Angeles but she was coming to her Bishop property

every 2-3 weeks to maintain her residence and pick up mail), that they awoke to a sign posted on

the door that the house had gone through the Trustee sale and had been sold, back to the Bank,

which was Defendant DEUTSCHE.

121. The Plaintiff stressed that there must be some massive mistake because the house

was going through the Loan Modification process and she had received no phone calls, no written

notices that anything was declined or approved with regards to the modification. The Plaintiff

called ASC and told them “she was recording the call for her records” and she then asked the call

center operator to “read her the notes on her file going back to as early as January”.

22 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

122. The Plaintiff listened to the call operator go through each and every entry which

included approval of the Loan modification in Late July, and the request for the paperwork to be

sent out, which the operator then stated was never done. The operator went on to read that the

investor approved a trial period of payments for three months and that the corresponding

paperwork to get sent out for that, but that paperwork was also never got sent. The operator then

read that the Trustee Sale went through as of the 8th of August. At this the call operator gasped

and said “oh my goodness this is a huge mistake, we need to rescind this sale immediately.”

123. The Plaintiff was then put on the call with the call operator’s supervisor who said

this would get rescinded immediately and the new paperwork would get sent out. The Plaintiff

requested numerous times for those notes to be transcribed and sent to her in written form so she

could have acknowledgement of their mistake in her written records. They refused, saying “the

lawyers never allow us to send out anything in writing”. The Plaintiff also sent written request to

Defendants ASC and NDEx, requesting written verification from their records of the massive

mistake. She never got any response.

124. The Plaintiff received new paperwork about 10 days later asking her to sign for the

new trial period payments which had incorrect date. It requested the payments begin in August

and run through November, and these first two sets of dates had already passed. The Plaintiff

again made numerous calls asking for correct paperwork, as she was not going to sign anything

with incorrect dates. At one point a very nice supervisor on the phone told the Plaintiff to “go

ahead and sign it anyway as the dates didn’t really matter and just you know, the dates are correct

in their files and records”. The Plaintiff said “that’s fine but please send me the correct

paperwork unless you are asking me to sign a fraudulent misleading contract.” He refused to send

new paperwork. The Plaintiff called back a week later with the same request and finally got an

23 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

operator that agreed to change the dates and send the correct paperwork, which they did. It was

now early September and the trial period was set to begin in October.

125. A few days later, the Plaintiff then received a call from a “negotiator” named

Crystal at ASC asking her to verbally agree to loan terms over the phone of 5% interest rate and a

30 year term with payments set to be $2,156.00 per month. The Plaintiff said “how can I agree to

loan terms over the phone, are you asking me to do business over the phone with no written

record?” The negotiator kept pressing for The Plaintiff to agree to these terms, like it was a sale

that was going to end. She reminded the Plaintiff of a pushy sales person. The Plaintiff said “I

can’t agree to anything over the phone and why don’t you explain to me how a loan modification

will only get me a payment of $50 less per month, when that’s what I couldn’t afford in the first

place?” The pushy negotiator said “are you declining this loan modification,” and the Plaintiff

replied “no, but I need to see all the terms on paper, and I need to see the accounting of how you

came up with the monthly payment figure.” The pushy negotiator continued to ask the Plaintiff

to agree to the loan terms right then and there over the phone, without seeing any written loan

terms, without seeing or taking into account any of the paperwork the Plaintiff had sent in with

monthly budget financials etc. At one point the Plaintiff said, “isn’t there some sort of loan

where it’s like a stair-step program? Where the interest rate is very low like 1-2% for a few years

and then it goes to 3-4% for a few years, etc”. The negotiator said “that’s called the H.A.M.P.

Program and you have to qualify for that, it’s a separate qualification process”. I said “I would

like to see if I qualified for that” and she said “well you have to say that you refused the loan

modification I am now offering you today so we can send your paperwork over there.” I accepted

this and of course they sent the Plaintiff a letter confirming she had refused the loan modification.

24 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

126. The Plaintiff received the H.A.M.P. Program paperwork in the mail about a week

later, and it told her she had to set up the trial payment plan in the amount of $2,170. It seemed

like they just pulled the numbers out of thin air and were making them up, leaving the Plaintiff

wondering where they came up with the numbers, since there was no real change in amount of her

monthly payment from prior to defaulting.

127. The Plaintiff then consulted with the Inyo County Recorder’s office and confirmed

their reception and recordation of the Notice of Rescission of Trustee Sale.

128. Although the Plaintiff requested this document from ASC, they never sent her the

copy so she had to pick it up from the Recorder’s office. This was only the beginning of what

was not sent and/or delivered properly according to all Federal and California Civil and Criminal

laws pertaining to these actions and real estate and rights of the homeowner.

E. THE NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCESS

(i) The Notice of Default

129. On February 12, 2009, a “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL

UNDER DEED OF TRUST” (“NOD”) was executed by “NDEx West, LLC, agent for

beneficiary” by an individual, Defendant Cheryl L. Asher. Exhibit 4.

130. Neither the actual “beneficiary” nor the actual “creditor” were explicitly listed on

the NOD.

131. Regarding information required pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, (“FDCPA”), and the implied beneficiary and creditor, the NOD stated:

. . . unless the obligation being foreclosed upon or a separate written agreement between you and your creditor permits a longer period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your creditor.

25 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason, contact:

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY c/o NDEx West, LLC

15000 Surveyor boulevard, Suite 500 Addison, Texas 75001-9013

(866) 795-1852

Exhibit 4. (Emphasis added).

132. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC is

falsely implied to be the “creditor” and/or “beneficiary” on the NOD.

133. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC was

not the “creditor” or “beneficiary” on the alleged loan the Plaintiff is claimed to have defaulted

on in the NOD.

134. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that neither Defendant

ASC nor Defendant NDEx were the actual “creditor” at the time the NOD was executed, nor at

the time the NOD was recorded.

135. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that because neither

Defendant ASC nor Defendant NDEx were the “creditor” at the time the NOD was executed or at

the time it was recorded, the demand for payment in the NOD was a fraudulent attempt to extort

money from the Plaintiff, made with the threat of taking away her home backing it up.

136. The NOD listed the amount of $10,208.99 as of February 12, 2009, as the amount

requested, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that none of the defendants

alleged responsible for this cause of action had any authority or right to request any sum from the

Plaintiff, especially the completely arbitrary and fictional amount of $10,208.99

137. Regarding the specific breach and default listed, the NOD states in relevant part:

26 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

That a breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed of Trust is security has occurred in that payment has not been made of: . THE INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WHICH BECAME DUE ON 11/1/2008 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT INSTALLMENTS, TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES AS SET FORTH IN SAID NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST, ADVANCES, ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND/OR TRUSTEE FEES, IF ANY.

138. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that California Law is clear

that a Trustee’s Sale simply cannot be predicated upon a Notice of Default containing the

conditional language “if any” because “if any” is not any default the claimed borrower can cure.

139. On February 12, 2008, the NOD was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office as Document Number 2009-0000359-00, per the request of Defendant SERVICELINK.

Id.

140. Regarding the filing of a NOD, the DOT states:

If Lender invokes the power of sale, Lender shall execute or cause Trustee to execute a written notice of the occurrence of an event of default and of Lender’s election to cause the Property to be sold.

Exhibit 3 at 12, § 23. (Emphasis added).

141. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that only the “Trustee,”

“CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY” and the purported “Lender,” defendant DECISION ONE, had

the authority to execute a Notice of Default. See Exhibit 3 at §23.

142. The NOD does not contain any statements claiming the actual alleged Original

Lender DECISION ONE did anything to initiate the NOD.

143. The relevant language of the NOD states as follows:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: NDEx West, LLC is . . . acting as Agent for the Trustee or Beneficiary under a Deed of Trust dated 10/26/2006 . . .

27 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

That a breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed of Trust is security has occurred . . . That by reason thereof, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust has executed and delivered to said agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent such deed of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations secured thereby.

Exhibit 4 at 2. (Emphasis added).

144. The “present beneficiary” is not explicitly named in the NOD, but the name

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY is listed as the entity to contact in the section the

beneficiary is supposed to be listed in under California Civil Code § 2924(c). Exhibit 4 at 2.

145. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the DOT executed

10/26/2006 was alleged to secure certain obligations in favor of Defendant DECISION ONE; the

actual purported “Lender,” not Defendant ASC.

146. There are no documents on record alleging that the Plaintiff ever entered into any

contractual agreement with Defendant “ASC” to secure any obligations in favor of Defendant

“ASC”.

147. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any statements claiming

Plaintiff ever executed any documents securing any obligations in favor of Defendant “ASC” are

false.

148. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the filing of the NOD

was and is illegal under the provisions of the DOT and California Law.

149. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the “Trustee’s Sale

Guarantee” (“TSG”) which is the document the Note Holder generates and forwards to the

28 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Trustee for the Trustee to initiate its part of the non-judicial foreclosure process) was either

never generated, or not executed by Defendant DECISION ONE, but rather Defendant ASC or

another entity who claimed to have the required right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to

execute the TSG.

150. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the language in the

NOD of, “the present beneficiary under such deed of trust has executed and delivered to said

agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said

agent such deed of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has

declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and

has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations

secured thereby,” (Exhibit 4 at 2), means Defendant DECISION ONE did not execute the TSG

– DECISION ONE is not even listed on the document.

151. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Endorsement/Date

Down” (“E/DD”) (which is a continuation of the TSG), was either never generated, or was not

executed by Defendant DECISION ONE, but either Defendant ASC or another entity who

claimed to have the required right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to execute the E/DD.

152. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the language in the NOD

of, “the present beneficiary under such deed of trust has executed and delivered to said agent, a

written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent such deed

of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has declared and does

hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does

hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations secured thereby,”

(Exhibit 4 at 2), means that Defendant DECISION ONE did not execute the E/DD.

29 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

153. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the entities and

individuals involved in the recording of the NOD are subject to California Penal Code § 115:

115.5. (a) Every person who files any false or forged document or instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an encumbrance on, or places an interest secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the document is false or forged, is punishable, in addition to any other punishment, by a fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). (b) Every person who makes a false sworn statement to a notary public, with knowledge that the statement is false, to induce the notary public to perform an improper notorial act on an instrument or document affecting title to, or placing an encumbrance on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units is guilty of a felony.

154. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC in

concert with Defendants NDEx, SERVICELINK, Asher, and Defendants DOES 1-10, caused

the NOD to be illegally created, executed, mailed to the Plaintiff, and filed in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office to illegally create the presumption that the debt alleged to be owed by the

Plaintiff in the NOD was “validated.”

155. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC in

concert with Defendants NDEx, SERVICELINK, Asher, and Defendants DOES 1-10, acts of

creating, executing, mailing, and causing to the NOD to be recorded in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California State and Federal

Law.

156. Attached to the recorded NOD is a document labeled “Declaration of

Compliance”. Exhibit 4 at 3.

157. The Declaration claimed that Countrywide had contacted the Plaintiff and

complied with California Civil Code § 2923.5.

30 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

158. The Notice of Default Declaration was signed by Defendant China Brown who

claimed to be working for America’s Servicing Company. Id

159. The Declaration was signed and dated, but there was no verification statement

and no place or location the document was signed at.

160. The purported “Declaration” was a simple statement, signed and dated by

Defendant Brown.

161. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the contents of

Defendant Brown’s “Declaration” are false.

162. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that without a valid

Declaration of Compliance or Notice of Default Declaration the NOD stands in violation of

California Civil Code § 2924 et seq.

(ii) THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE

163. On or about March 16, 2009, Defendant DEUTCHE with assistance from

Defendant’s Anne Neely, WFB, SERVICELINK and NDEx executed a “Substitution of

Trustee” (“SOT”), wherein Defendant DEUTCHE in concert with defendant WFB,

SERVICELINIK, NDEx, Asher, Brown, and DOES 1-10, substituted “CHICAGO TITLE

COMPANY” out as Trustee and substituted Defendant NDEx in as Trustee. Exhibit 5.

164. Defendant SERVICELINK is listed as the entity who requested the SOT to be

recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office. Defendant NDEx is listed as the entity who

requested the SOT to be returned to.

165. Defendant Asher signed the SOT on behalf of Defendant WFB who was stated

to be Defendant DEUTSCHE’s "Attorney in Fact”.

31 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

166. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on March 16, 2009,

when the SOT was signed and verified, Defendant DEUTSCHE was not the Beneficiary,

Creditor, Note Holder, Lender or authorized in any other manner to substitute the Trustee on

the Plaintiff’s DOT.

167. This is especially important because the SOT is a document which purported to

legally substitute out “CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY,” and substitute in Defendant

DEUTSCHE’s own agent – Defendant NDEx.

168. The relevant language used in the SOT states:

WHEREAS, ALYSON J. DENK was the original Trustor, CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY was the original Trustee, and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS) was the original Beneficiary Recorded on 11/30/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0004926 . . .WHEREAS, the undersigned is the present Beneficiary under said Deed of Trust, and WHEREAS, the undersigned desires to substitute a new Trustee under said Deed of Trust in place and instead of said prior Trustee.


169. The purported original lender, Defendant DECISION ONE, did not execute this

document, rather Defendant DEUTSCHE, in concert with Defendants WFB, SERVICELINK,

NDEx, Asher, and Brown executed and this document. Id.

170. Regarding the substitution of the Trustee, the DOT states:

24. Substitute Trustee. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located. The instrument shall contain the name of the original Lender, Trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this Security Instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee.

Exhibit 3 at 13, § 24. (Emphasis added).

32 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

171. The name of the purported original lender is not on this document as required by

the language of the DOT, the book and page number the DOT is recorded in is not on this

document as required by the language of the DOT, and this document was not executed by the

Lender - the only entity authorized by the DOT to execute the SOT.

172. The record is devoid of any document which would give Defendant DEUTSCHE,

in concert with Defendants WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, and/or Brown the legal

authority to unilaterally substitute out the old Trustee and substitute in a new one, giving that new

Trustee the legal authority to exercise the power of sale clause in that DOT.

173. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants actions in

creating, executing and recording the SOT was illegal under California law.


creating, executing and recording the SOT violated the contractual language of the DOT.

175. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the SOT is void.

176. On April 7, 2009, the SOT was subsequently recorded in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office under Document Number 2009-0000818-00. Exhibit 5.


causing the SOT to be recorded fall under the purview of California Penal Code 115.

178. On a date currently unknown to the Plaintiff, an individual or individuals who are

also currently unknown to the Plaintiff caused the SOT to be sent through the United States Postal

Service to the Plaintiff.

179. Brooke Ewing verified this fact in a sworn affidavit she executed on behalf of

Defendant NDEx on March 25, 2009. Exhibit 6.

(iii) THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

33 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

180. On March 19, 2009, Defendant MERS, “FOR VALUE RECEIVED,” executed a

Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust allegedly transferring all right, title and interest in the

Plaintiff’s home, “Together with the note or notes therein described or referred to, the money due

and to become due thereon with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of

Trust” to Defendant DEUTSCHE. Exhibit 7.

181. Defendant Porter, listed himself as “Assistant Secretary,” and signed on behalf of

Defendant MERS on the ADOT, allegedly transferring all right, title, and interest to the Plaintiff’s

DOT, (in addition to her Note), to Defendant DEUTSCHE. Id.

182. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter did not

have the authority to act on behalf of MERS in the capacity required for MERS to sell the

Plaintiff’s Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE through the ADOT.

183. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter was

not an “Assistant Secretary” for Defendant MERS on March 19, 2009, and that the ADOT is false

and illegal because Defendant Porter lists himself as “Assistant Secretary” for Defendant MERS

when that was simply not true.

184. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter

illegally signed the ADOT in the representative capacity as “Assistant Secretary” to aid, assist, or

help accomplish the grand scheme to defraud the Plaintiff out of her home.

185. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter’s

signature on the ADOT for Defendant MERS makes him the individual responsible for engaging

in the act of executing the ADOT to illegally produce evidence of an assignment of the Plaintiff’s

Note and DOT that appeared to be valid and lawful.

34 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

186. That same day, March 19, 2009, Defendant Hernandez signed the ADOT as an

official Notary Public, licensed and bonded in the State of Texas, affixed her seal and signature to

the ADOT verifying that Defendant Porter was in fact the “Assistant Secretary” of Defendant

MERS.

187. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandez’s

act of signing and affixing her official notorial seal to the ADOT illegally verified that Defendant

Porter did in fact possess the authority to execute a ADOT on behalf of MERS.

188. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandez’s

signature and seal lending authenticity to Defendant Porter’s signature on the ADOT for

Defendant MERS makes her legally liable to the Plaintiff for engaging in the act of verifying the

execution of the ADOT to illegally produce false evidence of an assignment of the Plaintiff’s

Note and DOT that appeared to be valid and lawful.


falsely verified Defendant Porter’s signature.


falsely verified the ADOT in that Defendant Porter never provided her any proof that he had the

authority to execute the ADOT selling the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT on behalf of MERS and to

DEUTSCHE.

191. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT falsely states

that it conveys the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT in that the document is

void, and any claimed conveyance is an absolute nullity, ab inito.

192. On April 1, 2009, the void ADOT was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office as DOC # 2009-0000767-00. Id.

35 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

193. The entity listed as the entity who requested the ADOT to be recorded was

Defendant SERVICELINK.

194. The entity listed as the entity who requested the ADOT to be returned to was

Defendant NDEx.

195. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants actions

resulting in Defendant SERVICELINK’S act of recording the ADOT in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office on April 1, 2010, are punishable under California Penal Code 115.


resulting in Defendant SERVICELINK’s act of recording the ADOT in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office on April 1, 2009, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California

State and Federal Law.

197. The Plaintiff’s personal records, the Inyo County Recorder’s Office, and the public

record compiled to date are all completely devoid of any documentation which would even

purport to give Defendant MERS the full authority to unilaterally sell ALL right title and interest

to the Plaintiff’s Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

198. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT is illegal in

that Defendant MERS could not sell the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s DOT because it

held no beneficial interest in her DOT.

199. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT is illegal in

that Defendant MERS never had any right to sell the Plaintiff’s Promissory Note.

200. There was no Preliminary Change of Ownership Form filed with the ADOT in

the Inyo County Recorder’s Office as required pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation

Code sections 480.3 and 480.4.

36 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

201. The record is devoid of any versions of the Plaintiff’s Note which are indorsed

by Defendant DECISION ONE to any other entity.

202. The assignment from Defendant MERS to Defendant DEUTSCHE is the only

“Assignment of Deed of Trust” on file between October 26, 2010, and March 19, 2010 for the

Subject Property in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office.

203. The record is completely devoid of any documentation which would even purport

to give Defendant MERS the full authority to unilaterally sell ALL right title and interest to the

Plaintiff’s Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

204. Defendant MERS is, admittedly, a foreign corporation based out of Delaware.

Exhibit 3 at 2.

205. For a foreign corporation to lawfully transact business in California, it must have a

valid Certificate of Qualification issued by the California Secretary of State.

206. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that between October 26,

2010, and March 19, 2010, Defendant MERS did not have a valid Certification of Qualification

issued from the California Secretary of State.

207. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that MERS did not even

attempt to obtain a Certificate of Qualification intentionally, to remain “off the radar” and

continue to evade California State, local and federal taxes for its continued actions of “doing

business” in the State of California via executing millions of assignments “FOR VALUE

RECEIVED”.

208. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS’ act of

receiving “Value” in exchange for the “right, title and interest” to the Plaintiff’s DOT and Note

37 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

constitutes “doing business in the State of California” and requires MERS to have a valid

Certificate of Qualification to lawfully do so in California.

209. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all contracts

entered into by a foreign corporation without having a valid Certificate of Qualification issued by

the California Secretary of State are void.

(iv) THE FIRST NOTICE SALE, THE SALE, AND RESCINSION

210. On May 19, 2009, Defendant Middleton on behalf of Defendant NDEx executed a

document titled, “NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE” (“NOTS #1”). Exhibit 8.

211. Despite the loan modification negotiations, Defendants sold the Plaintiff’s home

anyway. See Exhibit 9, TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE (“TDUS # 1).

212. The Plaintiff then sent Defendants Asher, NDEx, and ASC a written

communication titled, “NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE” explaining

the illegality of the sale of her home while she was in the middle of loan modification

negotiations. Exhibit 10.

213. After Defendants realized the plain and blatant illegality of their actions,

Defendant NDEx executed and caused to be recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed

Upon sale. Exhibit 11.

214. On December 25, 2010, the Plaintiff sent to John Stumpf, CEO of Defendant

WFB, two written communications titled, “NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT” and “LETTER

ROGATORY,” respectively. Exhibit 12.

215. In those written communications, the Plaintiff stated, among other things, that:

A. She was disputing the alleged debt;

B. She was cancelling the contract due to fraud by misrepresentation;

38 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Providing Notice to perfect her security interest in honour for settlement;

D. She was entitled to recoupment of any and all proceeds generated from her Note

and/or Deed of Trust;

E. Defences in recoupment;

F. Claims to her instrument per UCC § 3-306;

G. A claim of illegal alteration of her Note as defined by UCC § 3-407(b);

H. TILA, RESPA and California Business and Professions Code Violations;

I. All loan and other documents generated from the Note and Deed and relating to the

non-judicial foreclosure process; and

J. Demand for the non-judicial foreclosure to halt.

See Exhibit 12.

(v) SECOND NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE

216. On January 13, 2010, Defendant Middleton executed a second Notice of Trustee’s

Sale (NOTS #2) on behalf of Defendant NDEx. Exhibit 13.

217. NOTS #2 stated:

YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED 10/26/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. NDEX WEST, LLC, as duly appointed Trustee under and pursuant to Deed of Trust Recorded on 11/30/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0004962 of official records in the office of the County Recorder of INYO County, State of California . . . will sell . . . all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by it under said Deed of Trust . . .

Id.

39 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

218. The DOT authorized only the “Lender” to substitute the trustee, and there is no

definition of “duly appointed” given, however, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon

alleges that Defendant NDEx was not “duly appointed” under any legal and applicable definition

of the term, because it was substituted in by Defendant DEUTSCHE three full days before

Defendant MERS executed the ADOT, as shown above.

219. NOTS #2 also stated what the condition of the “title” to the property being sold

was being represented as, prior to sale:

Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, regarding title, possession or encumbrances. . .

Id. (Emphasis added).

220. NOTS #2 stated that the total amount of the unpaid balance plus interest, plus other

costs and expenses at the time of the initial “publication” of the Notice of Sale was $323,862.09.

221. NOTS #2 also contained the following clear and conspicuous statement:

NDEx West, L.L.C. MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

222. Although Defendant NDEx clearly identified itself as a debt collector and

identified NOTS # 2 as an “attempt to collect a debt,” NOTS #2 failed to contain the name of the

“creditor” in square violation of FDCPA §809.

223. NOTS #2 also states that because of that default, the purported beneficiary can and

will sell the Plaintiff’s home on January 6, 2010. Id.

224. This misrepresentation was relied upon and intended to be relied upon by the

Plaintiff, the Inyo County Recorder’s Office and others, and all three did so to the detriment of the

Plaintiff in that the Plaintiff was and is facing the constant threat of losing her home and being

40 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

physically evicted, the real consequence of having no home to live in because she is on a fixed

income and this entire incident has decimated her credit, and caused her an enormous amount of

mental and emotional anguish from dealing with the verbal demands for payment through a

multitude of phone calls over a period of years, a multitude of written demands for payment and

threats of consequences, stress, court trips, reading, misunderstanding intentionally confusing

documents, terms, conditions, clauses and her rights regarding such.

225. On January 18, 2010, NOTS #2 was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office as Document # 2010-0000159-00.

226. Defendant SERVICELINK is listed as the entity who requested NOTS #2 to be

recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office.

227. Defendant NDEx is listed as the entity who requested the recorded NOTS #2 to be

returned to.

228. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants acts

resulting in Defendant SERVICELINK’s act of recording NOTS # 2 in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office on January 18, 2010, violated the contractual language of the DOT and

California State and Federal Law.

(vi) SECOND TRUSTEE’S SALE

229. On February 10, 2010, a second Trustee’s Sale took place wherein the Plaintiff’s

home was acquired for $199,750.00 by the “grantee,” Defendant DEUTSCHE, as evidenced by

the second Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (“TDUS #2”). See Exhibit 14.

230. Defendant DEUTSCHE was listed as the entity who was the “grantee” AND the

“Beneficiary” on TDUS #2.

41 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

231. Defendant NDEx was listed as the “Trustee” who conducted the non-judicial

foreclosure sale.

232. Defendant Middleton was listed as the individual who signed TDUS #2 for

Defendant NDEx on February 11, 2010, in the State of Texas.

233. On February 17, 2010, TDUS #2 was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office as DOC # 2010-0000405-00.

234. The entity listed as the entity who requested TDUS #2 to be recorded was

Defendant NDEx.


resulting in Defendant NDEx’s act of recording TDUS #2 in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office

on February 17, 2010, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California State and

Federal Law.

236. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEx’s

recording of TDUS #2 in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office was an illegal act to falsely record

documents evidencing that Defendant DEUTSCHE sold the Plaintiff’s home to itself.

237. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEx’s act

of recording TDUS #2 constitutes actions sufficient to constitute knowing complicity in this

scheme to defraud the Plaintiff out of her home.

238. The entity listed as the entity who requested the recorded TDUS #2 to be returned

to was Defendant DEUTSCHE.

239. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant

DEUTSCHE’s act of requesting the recorded TDUS #2 to be returned to it constitutes actions

42 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sufficient to implicate Defendant DEUTSCHE in this scheme to unlawfully take the Plaintiff’s

home from her.

240. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Middleton’s

act of signing TDUS #2 constituted an action sufficient to constitute knowing complicity in this

scheme to illegally steal the Plaintiff’s home.

241. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the February 11, 2010,

TDUS #2 is false and illegal in that it states: “The Grantee herein was the beneficiary” when

Defendant DEUTSCHE was not the legal and legitimate beneficiary because it acquired the right,

title and interest it claimed in the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT from Defendant MERS, and entity who

admittedly holds no beneficial interest in the Notes and Deeds of Trust which are recorded in its

system.

242. The real effect of a ADOT in conjunction with a Trustee’s Sale where the “grantee

herein [is] the beneficiary” is that Defendant DEUTSCHE got paid as the “servicer” of this

purported loan, obtained the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT for the amount

of whatever “VALUE” it delivered to Defendant MERS. It did not have to buy the property and it

listed itself as the beneficiary on TDUS # 2 so it did not have to pay one cent in documentary

transfer taxes. Exhibit 14.

(vii) NOTICE TO QUIT AND UD PROCESS

243. The Notice to Quit was dated March 5, 2010, and served by mail upon the Plaintiff

somewhere around that same time.

244. Based upon its illegal claims of holding title, evidenced by the illegal TDUS #2,

Defendant DEUTSCHE then filed an Unlawful Detainer Complaint against the Plaintiff herein

the Plaintiff, and Does 1-X, Inclusive.

43 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

245. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DEUTSCHE

knowingly proceeded to prosecute an Unlawful Detainer Complaint despite the fact that TDUS #

2 it based its claims of title upon is VOID, because among other reasons, Defendant

DEUTSCHE’s false representations on TDUS # 2 that Defendant DEUTSCHE was the

foreclosing beneficiary.

246. The Plaintiff did manage to timely file an answer to the Unlawful Detainer

Complaint, generally denying all allegations.

247. Plaintiff has requested a stay of the Unlawful Detainer proceedings, pending the

outcome of this civil action.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH

AND FAIR DEALING

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS DECISION ONE, & DOES 1-10)

[Defendant Group One]

248. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

249. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there are other

individual, corporate, and other business entity Defendants whose names and identities are not

currently known that are responsible for this “Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and

Fair Dealing” cause of action, and Plaintiff therefore names those Defendants in this Cause of

Action as DOES 1-10, inclusive in “Defendant Group One,” and reserves the right to amend this

Complaint to later add those names when ascertained.

44 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

250. Defendant Group One enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights

of the Plaintiff during the events alleged in this Complaint and Defendant Group One, and each of

them, were required to exercise such power in good faith.

251. The Note and DOT executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One are

contractual agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One. The Note the Plaintiff

executed alleging a $304,500 loan plus interest from Defendant Group One was a simple contract,

which required an offer, acceptance and consideration in the form of said loan to be issued by

Defendant Group One, the stated "lender". However, no consideration was ever paid by

Defendant Group One, as evidenced by their own accounting records compiled pursuant to the

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which will be requested during discovery.

252. Defendant Group One enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights

of the Plaintiff during the events alleged in this Complaint and Defendant Group One, and each of

them, are required to exercise such power in good faith.

253. As a result of oral and express agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant Group

One with respect to the Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, and the other benefits Defendant Group

One received from the contractual arrangement with the Plaintiff, as set forth above, and the

because of the relationship which existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One, the

express and implied promises made in connection therewith, and the acts, conduct and

communications which resulted in said express and implied, promises, Defendants covenanted

and promised to act in good faith toward and to deal fairly with The Plaintiff and concerning all

matters related to her Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, so as not to deprive Plaintiff of or

injure her right to receive the benefits of said relationship.

45 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

254. Defendants' unilateral action in doing the things set forth above, including but not

limited to:

(a) Drafting a false statement which was material in that it formed Defendant Group

Two’s stated consideration in the Note, and deceiving the Plaintiff with it;

(b) Not putting up the required consideration as stated in violation of the contractual

language of the Note;

(c) Including unconscionable provisions in the DOT relating to the condition of the

title of Plaintiff’s home upon the consummation of the Note, and upon the

reconveyance;

(d) Requiring the Plaintiff to pay back this purported “loan” with interest, and to put

her house up as collateral, despite the fact that Defendant Group One risked

absolutely nothing of its own in exchange for these considerations from the

Plaintiff;

(e) Intentionally deceiving and misleading the Plaintiff as to the true nature of the

language, terms, duties and responsibilities established in the Note and DOT;

(f) Assessing improper or excessive late fees;

(g) Misapplying or failing to apply the Plaintiff’s payments;

(h) Failing to provide adequate monthly statement information to the Plaintiff

regarding the status of their accounts, payments owed, and/or basis for fees

assessed;

(i) Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges, that

are either not legally due under the mortgage contract or California law, or that

are in excess of amounts legally due;

46 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(j) Mishandling the Plaintiff’s mortgage payments and failing to timely or properly

credit payments received, resulting in late charges, delinquencies or default;

(k) Failing to disclose the fees, costs and charges allowable under the mortgage

contract;

(l) Ignoring grace periods;

(m) Executing and recording false and misleading documents;

(n) Acting as a creditor and as a beneficiary without the legal authority to do so.

(o) engaging in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overly-aggressive loan

marketing that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair fees against

California consumers;

(p) Representing that goods or services regarding their loan program were of a

particular standard, quality, or grade, and that the goods and services were of a

particular style or model, even though they were not;

(q) Advertising goods or services regarding their mortgage “loan” program with

intent not to sell them as advertised;

(r) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence

of, or amounts of price reductions regarding this purported mortgage loan

transaction;

(s) Representing that the purported mortgage loan transaction confers or involves

rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are

prohibited by law;

(t) Placing the Plaintiff into the loan product without regard for other products that

might have suited the Plaintiff better;

47 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(u) Placing the Plaintiff into a loan whereby it was likely the borrower would default

or incur bankruptcy as a result of the loan and it was reasonably foreseeable that

such would occur;

(v) Fraudulently inducing borrowers to enter into the purported mortgage transaction

which was contrary to the Plaintiff’s stated intentions, contrary to her interests,

and contrary to the preservation of her home,

constituted a unilateral breach of previous express and oral agreements upon which Plaintiff had

relied in entering into said relationship. Such conduct, and acts on behalf of Defendant Group

One, was wrongful, in bad faith, and unfair, and therefore a violation of each Defendant's legal

duties.

255. As a result of Defendant Group One’s breach of the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property. The

Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees and costs, as well

as expenses to right Defendants’ wrongdoing.

256. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct

of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,

and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount which will be proven

at the time of trial.

257. Defendant Group One’s actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,

malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount

appropriate to punish Defendant Group One and to deter others from engaging in the same

behavior.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

48 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (California Civil Code §2924 et seq.)

AGAINST DEFENDANTS NDEx, SERVICELINK,

DEUTSCHE, ASC,WFB, NEELY, BROWN, and DOES 1-10 [Defendant Group Two]

258. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-59 and 67-247

above, as though fully set forth herein.

A. GENERAL VIOLATION OF THE CODE

259. California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924(k) provides a comprehensive

framework for the regulation of a non-judicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale

contained in a deed of trust. This comprehensive statutory scheme has three purposes: “(1) to

provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting

debtor/trustor; (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure

that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide

purchaser.” (Emphasis added). Melendrez v. D&I Investment, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249-

1250 [26 Cal.Rptr. 3d 413] (2005).

260. Those California sections governing non-judicial sale shall be strictly construed.

Failure to follow the statutes means a foreclosure sale must be overturned. Read together, these

sections are clearly meant to protect borrower/consumer rights by introducing certain transparency

requirements. In other words, compliance with these sections assures that the real party in interest

(who really suffers an injury from borrower’s failure to pay) is known to the borrower.

261. The non-judicial foreclosure in this case fails all three prongs.

262. Defendant DEUTSCHE purportedly purchased, “for value,” the right, title and

interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT from Defendant MERS, an entity used as a tax-evasion

49 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“shell” to guard the multiple transfers of the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT “behind the scenes” so to

speak, who admittedly holds no beneficial interest in either the Note or the DOT, and has never

paid a cent in California State taxes.

263. Defendant MERS, an entity who admittedly holds no beneficial interest in the

Deeds of Trust it records in its system, nor the Promissory Notes the Deeds purportedly secure,

claimed to transfer enough beneficial interest in the DOT and Note for Defendant DEUTSCHE to

presume it could exercise the power of sale clause in the DOT.

264. As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant

MERS never possessed the requisite right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT to be

able to pass the requisite right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE –

“requisite” meaning enough to exercise the power of sale clause contained within the DOT.

265. Additionally, under California State Law, specifically, California Revenue and

Taxation Code § 23304.1, contracts entered into by a foreign corporation which constitute “doing

business” must be declared “void” upon any court action to obtain such a ruling, if that foreign

corporation has not paid the taxes applicable for its actions of “doing business” in the State of

California, as evidenced by the contract being requested to be declared void – in this case, the

ADOT.

266. As a necessary consequence of this, the Trustee’s Sale fails to meet the first prong

because the Trustee’s Sale was not initiated by the true creditor/beneficiary. Rather, it was

initiated by Defendant DEUTSCHE.

267. There were a multitude of technical and other violations of § 2924 which are

described with specificity in paragraphs 268-291 below. Thus, the foreclosure sale at issue could

not be conducted properly under the current statutory regime and the terms of the Note and DOT

50 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contracts. Thus, such foreclosure was illegal, results in the Plaintiff’s wrongful loss of property,

ensuring the sale fails the second and third prongs as well.

A. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE

Violation of §§ 2924(b) and (c) – The Notice Of Default

268. In California, the statutory requirements for “non-judicial foreclosure” must be

strictly complied with, and a trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient notice of default is

invalid. (Miller v. Cote, (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894 [179 Cal.Rptr. 753], relying on System

Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d at pp. 152-153; see also Sweatt v. Foreclosure Co.

(1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 273, 278 [212 Cal.Rptr. 350].).

269. Section 2924 requires that the notice of default must contain the ground of default

and section 2924c specifies the means for curing a default so noticed. Consistent with the notice

required by section 2924, section 2924c, subdivision (a)(1) provides the means of cure

"[whenever] . . . the principal sum of any obligation secured by deed of trust" has been declared

due "[a] by reason of default in payment of interest or of any installment of principal, or [b] by

reason of failure . . . to pay . . . taxes, assessments, [or] premiums for insurance . . . ." The trustor

may cure the default by timely payment of "the entire amount then due" plus costs and expenses

incurred in enforcing the obligation except that, with respect to principal owed, the trustor need not

pay "the portion of principal as would not then be due had no default occurred . . . ." The

consequence of such a cure is that "all [foreclosure] proceedings theretofore had or instituted shall

be dismissed or discontinued and the obligation and deed of trust . . . shall be reinstated . . . ." (§

2924c, subd. (a)(1); also see Tomczak, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d at pp. 903-904.)

270. The obligation of the beneficiary to provide the trustor with an accurate accounting

of the amounts due to cure a default is governed by statute. Section 2924 specifies that a copy of

51 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the notice of default must be sent to the trustor together with "the statement specified in paragraph

(1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2924c" that the trustor may have "the legal right to bring your

account in good standing by paying all of your past due payments plus permitted costs and

expenses within the time permitted by law" and informs him that: "This amount is … as of (date) .

. . ." (§ 2924c, subd. (b)(1); ante, fn. 3.)

271. Thus, in California, a Trustee’s Sale which is based upon a Notice of Default which

contains the “conditional” language of “if any,” is a Trustee’s Sale which stands in violation of §

2924.

272. As shown above at paragraphs 129-162, the falsely stated agent for the first falsely

stated beneficiary, Defendant ASC, declared in writing on the NOD itself that, “payment has not

been made . . . TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES . . . ADVANCES, ASSESSMENTS,

FEES, AND/OR TRUSTEE FEES, IF ANY.” Exhibit 5 at 2.

273. Thus, the Trustee’s Sale conducted by Defendant NDEx on February 10, 2010, was

predicated upon a Notice of Default which contains the conditional language of “if any”.

274. Referring to Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(b) which sets forth the requirements a

foreclosing beneficiary must comply with, Defendant Brown, stated to be employed by Defendant

ASC, produced a “NOTICE OF DEFAULT DECLARATION” claiming that the mortgagee or

beneficiary or their authorized agent has complied with California Civil Code 2923.5(b),

specifically stating in writing that the “mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent has contacted

the borrower to discus 2923.5(b). Exhibit 5 at 3.

275. The declaration does not contain the statement that it was made under penalty of

perjury as required for the Declaration to be legal under California Law.

52 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

276. Additionally, as shown by the attached declaration by the Plaintiff, the declaration

by China Brown is false.

277. The mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent of such did not contact the Plaintiff

as required by California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b).

278. As a result of Defendants gross violations of §2924(b) and (c) which render the

subsequent Trustee’s Sale “wrongful,” Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to

prosecute this action, and have incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be

proven at trial.

279. Pursuant to the controlling contractual documents(s) of the Note and DOT and/or

California State Law, Federal Law, and the Plaintiff’s fundamental contractual rights, Plaintiff is

entitled to recover her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as well as expenses to right Defendant

Group One’s wrongdoing.

b. Violations of §§ 2934a - The Substitution of Trustee

280. Regarding the substitution of trustee on a deed of trust, California Civil Code §

2934a provides in part that:

The trustee . . . may be substituted by the recording in the county in which the property is located of a substitution executed and acknowledged by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or her successors in interest, . . . . or (B) the holders of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property . . . .(emphasis added).

281. Additionally, the language of the DOT regarding the substitution of Trustee states,

“only the lender shall substitution the trustee”. Exhibit 3 at 12, § 23.

282. The Official Records of the Inyo County Recorder’s Office reveal the following:

53 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. On November 30, 2006, the DOT was recorded naming CHICAGO

TITLE COMPANY as the Trustee. See Exhibit 3. That notarization

of the Plaintiff’s signature was stated to have occurred on November

10, 2006. The DOT is bears the date of October 26, 2006. Exhibit 3 at

1.

b. On March 16, 2010, a Substitution of Trustee was executed by

Defendant DEUTSCHE, through Defendant WFB, through its agent,

Defendant Neely. The SOT substituted out the original Trustee on the

DOT, CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, and substituted in Defendant

NDEx. See Exhibit 5.

c. That same day, March 16, 2010, that SOT was recorded in the ICRO.

d. Three days after the substitution of Trustee by Defendant

DEUTSCHE, on October 26, 2009, Defendant SERVICELINK

requested the illegal SOT be filed in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office, and it was recorded with under Document Number 2009-

0000818-00. Exhibit 5. In that assignment, Defendant MERS, “FOR

VALUE RECEIVED” purported to sell the right, title and interest to

the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE.

283. Thus, according to the ICRO and the DOT, on March 16, 2009, when the SOT was

executed and acknowledged by Defendant Neely, as agent for WFB, (who in turn was agent for

DEUTSCHE), only Defendant DECISION ONE, its successor(s) and/or assign(s) were entitled to

execute the SOT, cause that execution to be acknowledged, or record or mail that SOT.

54 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

284. At the time the SOT was executed and acknowledged by a notary public, Defendant

DEUTSCHE could not legally be considered “all of the beneficiaries” of the DOT, and could not

be legally considered the DOT beneficiary’s successor or assign.

285. At the time the SOT was executed and acknowledged by a notary public, Defendant

DEUTSCHE was not the holder of more than 50% of the record beneficial interest of the Note

secured by the same real property.

286. In short, at the time Defendant DEUTSCHE caused the SOT to be executed and

acknowledged through its stated agent Defendant WFB and notary public Geraldine Johnson,

neither Defendant DEUTSCHE nor Defendant WFB were beneficiaries under the DOT, the

successor(s) or assign(s) of such, or holders of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial

interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property, as required by California Civil Code

§ 2934a.

287. Based upon the dates and other information regarding the entities listed on the face

of the SOT, Defendant SERVICELINK knew or should have known that the SOT stood in

violation of § 2924a and the contractual language of the DOT.

288. As a result of Defendant Group Two’s illegal conduct as set forth above, the

Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property. The Plaintiff has incurred and

continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees and costs, as well as expenses to right

Defendant Group Two’s wrongdoing.

289. As a result of the Defendant Group Two’s actions claimed in this cause of action,

the Plaintiff has been damaged at least in the amount of her Note and home, totaling

$1,005,039.12.

55 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

290. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned illegal conduct of

Defendant Group Two, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional

distress, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount which will be

proven at the time of trial.

291. Defendant Group Two’s actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,

malicious, and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to

punish Defendants and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION TO SET ASIDE UNLWAFUL TRANSFER

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERS, DEUTSCHE, ASC, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Porter, Hernandez, and DOES 1-10)

[Defendant Group Three]

292. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-66, 67-102, and 129-

29, as though fully set forth herein.

293. According to the ICRO, there are three separate documents which list a

“beneficiary” on the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT. First, the DOT itself, which states that DECISION

ONE is the “Lender” and that Defendant MERS is the beneficiary under the DOT.

294. Second is the ADOT which states that MERS transferred all right, title and interest

to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE.

295. Third is TDUS # 2, which lists Defendant DEUTSCHE as the foreclosing

beneficiary and as the “grantee” of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.

296. Supporting this fact is the statement on the face of TDUS # 2 which states that the

Documentary Transfer Tax applicable to TDUS # 2 was “0”. Exhibit 14 at 1.

56 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

297. Thus, the “ADOT” represents a “transfer” of the right, title and interest to the

Plaintiff’s Note and DOT sufficient for Defendant DEUTSCHE to be considered the “foreclosing

beneficiary” on the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT.

298. Under California Law, the exchange from MERS to DEUTSCHE exchange was

supposed to be “taxed” and, as all other exchanges are. If Defendant MERS had been the

foreclosing beneficiary and Defendant DEUTSCHE had been the highest bidder at the Trustee’s

Sale, Defendant DEUTSCHE would have had to pay the applicable documentary transfer tax. By

virtue of the ADOT, Defendant DEUTSCHE was able to claim that it was the foreclosing

beneficiary as well as the grantee, therefore the applicable documentary transfer tax was ZERO.

Necessarily then, the taxable exchange took place prior to TDUS # 2 – specifically, at the point of

the ADOT.

299. California Corporations Code § 191 states, “(a) For the purposes of Chapter 21

(commencing with Section 2100), ‘transact intrastate business’ means entering into repeated and

successive transactions of its business in this state, other than interstate or foreign commerce.”

300. Through various secretaries, assistant vice presidents and other titles, Defendant

MERS has executed millions of “assignments” of the right, title and interest to California State

homeowners Notes and Deeds of Trust, including the Plaintiff’s. As such, the ADOT represents

Defendant MERS transacting intrastate business such that California State taxes were due.

301. The ADOT executed by on behalf of Defendant MERS is void under Cal. Tax &

Rev. Code§§ 23304.5, 23305A, because Defendant MERS has not paid the requisite taxes for its

actions of “doing business” in the State of California, as represented by the ADOT.

302. However, the ADOT purporting to transfer all beneficial interest in the DOT is

VOID because defendant MERS allegedly received “VALUE” from DEUTSCHE for all the

57 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

beneficial interest MERS had under the DOT and the “note or notes” (i.e., doing business), and

MERS did not pay the requisite taxes for such actions of doing business.

303. Because the ADOT is void, any and all documents in the Inyo County Recorder’s

Office which came after the ADOT and reference the Plaintiff’s DOT, including but not limited to

NOTS # 2, TDUS # 2 and the entire Unlawful Detainer action are all VOID.

304. As a result of Defendant Group Three’s conduct amounting to an Unlawful

Transfer of the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT as set forth above, the

Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property.

305. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney

fees and costs, as well as expenses to right Defendant Group Three’s wrongdoing.

306. As a result of the Defendant Group Three’s actions claimed in this cause of

action, the Plaintiff has been damaged at least in the amount of her Note and home, totaling

$1,005,039.12.


of Defendant Group Three, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and

emotional distress, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount

which will be proven at the time of trial.

308. Defendant Group Three’s actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,

malicious, wrongful and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount

appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same

behavior.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACITON

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT

58 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERS, DEUTSCHE, WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, Porter, Neely, Hernandez, and DOES 1-10)

[Defendant Group Four]

309. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-66, 67-98, 103-247

above, as though fully set forth herein.

310. The Note and DOT documents constitute “contracts” formed by and between the

Plaintiff and DECISION ONE.

311. The Note and DOT contracts themselves have set contractual language that defines

the rights, obligations and authority of both the Plaintiff and DECISION ONE.

312. § 6(c) of the Note allows only the “Note Holder” to declare the Plaintiff in

“default”. Likewise, § 23 of the DOT allows only the “Lender” to substitute the Trustee on the

DOT. While California State Law may allow for other entities and parties to substitute the

Trustee, the contractual language of the Note and DOT allow only specific parties: the “Note

Holder” and the “Lender”. Any other entity or party taking the actions described as being within

the sole purview of the Note Holder and/or the Lender must necessarily constitute tortuous

interference with the Note and/or DOT contracts.

313. Defendant EMC and MERS’ actions as described above regarding the execution,

recording and mailing of the NOD and the ADOT, constitute tortuous interference of the

contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and

Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT.

314. Defendant DEUTSCHE’s actions as described above regarding the ADOT, SOT,

both NOTS’s, both TDUS’s, and the Unlawful Detainer action, and constitute tortuous interference

59 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the contractual language of the December 23, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and

Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT.

315. Defendant ASC’s actions as described above regarding the NOTICE OF

DEFAULT DECLARATION, and DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE, constitute tortuous

interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the

Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §1 and 6(c) of the Note and §§ 22 and 24 of

the DOT.

316. Defendant NDEx’s actions as described above regarding the execution, recording,

and/or mailing of the NOD, SOT and the ADOT, both NOTS’s and both TDUS’s constitute

tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note

between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT and §

§§ 1 and 6(c) of the Note.

317. Defendant SERVICELINK’s actions as described above regarding the execution

and recording in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office of the NOD, SOT and the ADOT, both

NOTS’s and both TDUS’s constitute tortuous interference of the contractual language of the

October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE,

specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT and § 1 and 6(c) of the Note.

318. Defendant WFB’s actions as described above regarding the SOT constitutes

tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and Note between

the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT.

319. Defendant Asher’s actions as described above regarding the execution of the NOD

constitutes tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the

60 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT

and § 1 and 6(c) of the Note.

320. Defendant Neely actions as described above regarding the execution of the SOT

constitutes tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and

Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22 and 24 of the DOT.

321. Defendant Middleton’s actions as described above regarding the both NOTS’s and

both TDUS’s constitute tortuous interference of the contractual language of the December 23,

2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically §§ 22

and 24 of the DOT and § 1 and 6(c) of the Note.

322. Defendant DOES 1-10 acted principally or in the capacity of an aider and abettor to

facilitate and complete the above described actions and results, and the Plaintiff reserves the right

to later amend her complaint when those parties along with their specific conduct have been

ascertained.

323. As a result of the Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional

transgressions which squarely violate the contractual language of the Note and DOT between the

Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE as set forth above, the Defendants conduct must be

considered sufficient to be described as tortuous interference with a contract, as Plaintiff has

suffered a multitude of mental, emotional, psychological injuries and injuries to a multitude of her

rights, including but not limited to her right to the use and enjoyment of her property without the

unconscionable threat of losing her property.

324. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees

and costs, as well as expenses to right the Defendants wrongdoing.

61 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

325. As a result of the Defendant Group Four’s actions claimed in this cause of action,


$1,005,039.12.

326. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of

the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,



327. Defendant Group Four’s actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,

malicious, illegal and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate

to punish The Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same

behavior.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.)

AGAINST DEFENDANTS DEUTSCHE, ASC, WFB,

SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, Brown, Porter, Neely, Johnson, Hernandez, Middleton and DOES 1-10

(DEFENDANT GROUP FIVE)

328. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

329. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that Defendants,

DEUTSCHE, ASC, WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, Porter, Neely, Hernandez, and DOES

1-10 were purporting to act as mortgage servicers, or the agents of such with regard to the

Plaintiff’s Note and DOT. However, except for Defendant MERS, all these entities and persons

purported to acquire said positions with respect to the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT AFTER THE

62 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PURPORTED DEFAULT BY THE PLAINTIFF, bringing all defendants squarely under the

purview of Title 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et. seq., better known as The Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, (“FDCPA”)

330. Neither the actual “beneficiary” nor the actual “creditor” are explicitly listed on the

NOD.

331. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NOD’s failure to

contain the name of the actual creditor stands in violation of FDCPA § 809.

332. Regarding information required pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, the NOD stated:

. . . unless the obligation being foreclosed upon or a separate written agreement between you and your creditor permits a longer period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your creditor. To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason, contact:

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY c/o NDEx West, LLC

15000 Surveyor boulevard, Suite 500 Addison, Texas 75001-9013

(866) 795-1852


333. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC was

not the “creditor” on the alleged loan The Plaintiff is claimed to have defaulted on in the NOD.

334. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC is

illegally implied to be the “creditor” on the NOD.

63 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

335. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that neither Defendant

NDEx nor Defendant ASC were the actual “creditor” at the time the NOD was executed, nor at

the time the NOD was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office.

336. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that because neither

Defendant NDEx nor Defendant ASC nor any other named defendants were the “creditor” at the

time the NOD was executed or at the time it was recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office,

the demand for payment in the NOD was a illegal attempt to wrongfully obtain money from the

Plaintiff, made with the threat of taking away her home backing that extortion attempt up.

337. The NOD listed the amount of $10,208.99 as the amount requested, and Plaintiff is

informed and believes and thereon alleges that none of the defendants alleged responsible for this

cause of action had any authority or right to request any sum from the Plaintiff, especially the

completely arbitrary and fictional amount of $10,208.99.

338. The Plaintiff therefore is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the listing

of $10,208.99 in the NOD violated §§ 806-809, 812, and 813 of the FDCPA

339. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the incurable clause of

“if any,” included in the NOD in a self-stated “attempt to collect a debt” violates §§ 806-809, 812

and 813 of the FDCPA.

340. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEX’s

actions of recording the NOD in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office official records violated §§

806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813 of the FDCPA

341. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC and

Defendant NDEX caused the NOD to be illegally filed in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office to

64 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

illegally create the presumption that the debt alleged to be owed by The Plaintiff in the NOD

was “validated” in violation § 809 of the FDCPA.

342. The “present beneficiary” is not explicitly named in the NOD, but the name

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY is listed as the entity to contact in the section the

beneficiary is supposed to be listed in under California Civil Code § 2924(c). Exhibit 5 at 2.

343. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this misrepresentation

violated FDCPA §§ 806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813.

344. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any statements claiming

Plaintiff ever executed any documents securing any obligations in favor of “ASC” are false.

345. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the filing of the NOD

was and is illegal under FDCPA §§ 806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813.

346. On numerous occasions, in connection with the collection of an alleged debt,

when the Plaintiff notified Defendants in writing within the (30) day period described in §

809(a) of the FDCP A, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), that the debt, or any portion thereof, was

disputed, Defendants have continued to attempt to collect the debt before verification of the

debt was provided to the consumer, in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCP A, 15 U.S.C. §

1692g(b). See Exhibits 10 and 16.

347. NOTS # 2 stated:

YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED 10/26/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. NDEX WEST, LLC, as duly appointed trustee . . . WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION . . .

Id.

65 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

348. The Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED

OF TRUST, DATED 10/26/2006” is a misleading statement in violation of FDCPA §§ 806-809,

812, and 813.

349. Additionally, the DOT authorized only the “Lender” to substitute the trustee, and

there is no definition of “duly appointed” given, however, Plaintiff is informed and believes and

thereon alleges that Defendant NDEX was not “duly appointed” under any legal and applicable

definition of the term, because it was substituted in by Defendant DEUTSCHE, as shown above.

350. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEx had no

authority from the actual “creditor” to even execute NOTS # 2 and “attempt to collect a debt”

from the Plaintiff, thus, executing, mailing and recording NOTS # 2 violated FDCPA §§ 806-809,

812, and 813.

351. NOTS # 2 also contained the following clear and conspicuous statement:

NDEx West, LLC is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

352. Although Defendant NDEx clearly identified itself as a debt collector and

identified NOTS # 2 as an “attempt to collect a debt,” NOTS # 2 failed to contain the name of the

“creditor” in square violation of FDCPA §809.

353. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group

Four engaged in acts resulting in violations of FDCPA §§ 806-809, 812, and 813.

354. As a result of Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional violations of

the FDCPA as set forth above, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her

property.

66 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

355. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney

fees and costs, as well as expenses to right Defendants wrongdoing.


of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,




malicious, illegal and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount

appropriate to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same

behavior.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT, RIGHT TO CURE AND ACCELERATION NOTICE

(Violation of 12 U.S. C. §§ 2601 et seq., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq. and Title 12 C.F.R., § 226.18, California Civil Code § 2924 et seq.)

[AGAINST DEFENDANT GROUP FOUR]

358. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations

contained herein as though fully set forth in full.

359. As stated more specifically in paragraphs 67-98, 103-128 and 129-162, supra,

Defendant Group Four has further failed to give proper notice of Notice of Default and Right to

Cure and acceleration of the loan transaction as required by 12 U.S. C. §§ 2601 et seq., 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1601, et seq. and Title 12 C.F.R., § 226.18, California Civil Code § 2924 et seq.

360. Plaintiff is specifically in the class of persons this statute was designed to protect.

67 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

361. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant Group Four’s failure as

described herein, Plaintiff is subject to loss of property and loss of use of property and other

damages.



$1,005,039.12.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETETION LAW (California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

363. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

364. As more fully described above, the Defendants’ acts and practices are likely to

deceive, constituting an illegal business act or practice. This conduct is ongoing and continues to

this date.

365. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices with respect

to mortgage loan servicing, assignments of notes and deeds of trust, foreclosure of residential

properties and related matters by:

(a) Including unconscionable provisions in the DOT relating to the condition of the title

of Plaintiff’s home upon the consummation of the Note and DOT contracts, and

upon the reconveyance;

68 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(b) Requiring the Plaintiff to pay back this purported “loan” with interest, and to put her

house up as collateral, despite the fact that Defendant Group One risked absolutely

nothing of its own in exchange for these considerations from the Plaintiff;

(c) Intentionally deceiving and misleading the Plaintiff as to the true nature of the

language, terms, duties and responsibilities established in the Note and DOT;

(d) Assessing improper or excessive late fees;

(e) Improperly characterizing the Plaintiff’s account as being in default or delinquent

status to generate unwarranted fees;

(f) Improperly characterizing the Plaintiff’s account as being in default or delinquent

status to collect insurance payments, take advantage of credit default swaps, and

other monetary generating avenues;

(g) Instituting improper or premature foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted

fees;

(h) Instituting improper or premature foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted

insurance payments;

(i) Misapplying or failing to apply the Plaintiff’s payments;

(j) Failing to provide adequate monthly statement information to the Plaintiff regarding

the status of their accounts, payments owed, and/or basis for fees assessed;

(k) Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges, that are

either not legally due under the mortgage contract or California law, or that are in

excess of amounts legally due;

(l) Mishandling the Plaintiff’s mortgage payments and failing to timely or properly

credit payments received, resulting in late charges, delinquencies or default;

69 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(m) Treating the Plaintiff as though she were in default on her purported loan even

though the she tendered timely and sufficient payments or had otherwise complied

with mortgage requirements or California law;

(n) Failing to disclose the fees, costs and charges allowable under the mortgage contract;

(o) Ignoring grace periods;

(p) Executing and recording false and misleading documents in the ICRO;

(q) Acting as creditors, beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority to do so.

(r) engaging in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overly-aggressive servicing

that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair fees against California

consumers;

(s) Acting as the beneficiary, creditor and the Trustee in the Plaintiff’s Note and DOT

without the legal authority to do so.

(t) Theft of Plaintiff’s property on a void security interest;

(u) Theft of Plaintiff’s property on a void security interest, repossession of which they

are not in possession nor otherwise entitled to payment;

(v) Using unfair and unconscionable means in an attempt to collect a debt via execution,

mailing and recording of the NOD, execution, acknowledgment, mailing and

recording of the SOT, execution, acknowledgment, mailing and recording of the

ADOT, execution, mailing and recording of NOTS # 2, execution, acknowledgment,

mailing and recording of TDUS # 2, execution and mailing of the 3-day Notice to

Quit, malicious prosecution of the Unlawful Detainer civil case against the Plaintiff

in a concerted effort to steal the Plaintiff’s home;

70 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(w) Representing that goods or services in the form of a refinance loan product were of a

particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model,

if they are of another;

(x) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertise;

(y) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of,

or amounts of price reductions and/or conditions and clauses in the Note and DOT

contracts;

(z) Representing that the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust transaction between

Defendant Group One confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it

does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law;

366. Additionally, Defendant NDEx’s actions as described above regarding the NOD,

SOT, ADOT, both NOTS’s, and both TDUS’s constitute unlawful business acts and practices

which violate § 17200 et seq.

367. Defendant ASC’s actions as described above regarding the NOD constitute

unlawful business acts and practices which violate § 17200 et seq.

368. Defendant DEUTSCHE’s actions as described above regarding the ADOT, SOT,

both NOTS’s, and both TDUS’s constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate §

17200 et seq.

369. Defendant WFB’s actions as described above regarding the SOT constitute

unlawful business acts and practices which violate § 17200 et seq.

370. Defendant MERS’ actions as described above regarding the NOD, SOT, and

especially ADOT constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate § 17200 et seq.

71 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

371. Defendants Porter, Asher, Neely, Hernandez, Middleton, and DOES 1-10 are

individuals who engaged in actions on behalf of the Defendants which are companies or

corporations, and those individuals actions regarding the NOD, SOT, ADOT, both NOTS’s and

both TDUS’s constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate § 17200 et seq.

372. As a result of the Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional unlawful

business acts and practices described in this Complaint, the Defendants conduct must be

considered sufficient to be described as violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, as Plaintiff has

suffered a multitude of mental, emotional, psychological injuries and injuries to a multitude of her

rights, including but not limited to her right to the use and enjoyment of her property without the

unconscionable threat of losing her property.





$1,005,039.12.





376. Defendant’s actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious, and

oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish The

Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

72 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500

(AGAINST DEFENDANT GROUP FOUR)

377. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all paragraphs above as if

fully reproduced herein.

378. California Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. prohibits the making of a

statement or a publication or declaration concerning any circumstances or matter of fact connected

with the proposed performance or disposition of real or personal property, which pronouncement is

untrue or misleading, and which if known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be

known, to be untrue or misleading.

379. The facts are undisputed that Defendant DEUTSCHE, ASC, SERVICELINK,

NDEx, Middleton, and DOES 1-10 did published the NOD, two separate NOTS’s and two separate

TDUS’s regarding the alleged default of the Plaintiff, and Defendant Group Four’s actions in

providing notice to the public that the Property subject to the Deed of Trust would be sold at public

auction to satisfy the secured obligation regarding the Property. Subsequent to that, Defendant

Group Four actually held a Trustee’s Sale for the Plaintiff’s home.

380. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group

Four deceived the public in the NOD, the SOT, both NOTS’ and both TDUS’s claim the

Defendants were the beneficiary, creditor, and/or Note Holder, and or had the power to sell the

Property when lacking such ownership and power as alleged throughout the complaint in all

preceding paragraphs above.

381. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group Four

drafted, mailed and recorded a NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE, twice, (as specified in paragraphs

210 & 216-228, supra), and that this statement (NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE) and those

73 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

statements connected with it, in connection with the sale of personal property which were untrue or

misleading and means the Defendants had knew, or which by the exercise of reasonable care

should have known, to be untrue or misleading by said Defendants, each and every one of them.


Four intended the general public to rely on their misstatements and have the Plaintiffs’ Property be

sold at Auction. The Plaintiff reasonably relied on these misrepresentations, by now filing suit and

requesting a TRO and preliminary injunction.


Four’s alleged business practice(s) stated within this cause of action based on Cal. Civ. Code §

17500 are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to the Plaintiff,

and requires the Court to weigh the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the

harm to Plaintiff.

384. Plaintiff’s request for relief is the return of all funds received by each and every

Defendant from the Plaintiff as a request for restitution relief as allowed under § 17203.

385. The UCL authorizes injunctive relief to prevent unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent

business acts or practices, and both restitution and disgorgement of money or property wrongfully

obtained by means of such unfair competition, (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203).

386. Plaintiff requests that this Court have the Preliminary Injunction become permanent

to prevent the re-occurring of the violation of the UCL against the non-judicial foreclosure pending

against the Plaintiff by Defendant Group Four.



74 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






malicious, and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to

punish the Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them,

jointly and severally, as follows:

A. For an order from this court that the Assignment of Deed of Trust from Defendant MERS

to Defendant DECISION ONE recorded in the Inyo County Recorder’s Office on March

19, 2009, as Document Number 2009-0000767-00 be set aside and voided because

Defendant MERS had not complied with the requisite California Law required for a foreign

corporation to do business in this State;

B. For an order from this court that the Notice of Default and Election to Sell recorded in the

Inyo County Recorder’s Office on February 18, 2009, as Document Number 2009-

0000359-00 be set aside and declared “void”;

C. For an order from this court that the Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office April 7, 2009, as Document Number 2009-0000818-00 be set aside and

declared “void”;

D. For an order from this court that the Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office on January 18, 2010 as Document Number 2009-0000159-00 be set

aside and declared “void”;

75 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. For an order from this court that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded in the Inyo County

Recorder’s Office on February 17, 2010, as Document Number 2010-0000-405-00 be set

aside and declared “void”;

F. As a result of Defendants aforesaid violations, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in an

amount not less than $200.00 and up to $2,000.00, for each and every so stated applicable

statutory violation;

G. Damages as a result of the aforementioned violations, to be fixed and awarded by the

Court;

H. Damages for the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in the amount of $4,000.00 for

each and every violation;

I. Damages in the amount of three times the interest paid and clear title to the property

stemming from the usurious interest;

J. Judgment against Defendants for return of the down payment, and other payments, as well

as interest on the above amount;

K. Cost of litigation as provided in Title 15 United States Code, Section 1601 et. seq.;

L. An injunction to enjoin defendants from keeping relevant documents including but not

limited to the complete loan package, and to forward all relevant foreclosure documents to

the defendant;

M. For an order enjoining Defendant DEUTSCHE from selling, encumbering, or disposing of

the real property described in paragraph 1 of this complaint;

N. For an Order rescinding the non-judicial foreclosure of the property and restores both title

and possession to the Plaintiff;

O. For an Order from the Court Quieting Title on the Subject Property against Defendants,

76 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and each of them;

P. For actual damages according to proof;

Q. For compensatory damages as permitted by law;

R. For consequential damages as permitted by law;

S. For statutory damages as permitted by law;

T. For punitive damages as permitted by law;

U. For damages in an amount to be determined at a jury trial;

V. For rescission;

W. For restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained as a result of their

unfair competition;

X. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;

Y. For Declaratory Relief; and

Z. For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem fair equitable and just.

DATED: April 19, 2011. LAW OFFICES OF EMMANUEL F. FOBI

By:____________________________________ EMMANUEL F. FOBI Attorney for the Plaintiff Savannah Ally Jackson

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff requests that the trial in this case be by jury. By:____________________________________ EMMANUEL F. FOBI Attorney for the Plaintiff Savannah Ally Jackson

77 COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

I, Savannah Ally Jackson, am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. I have read the

foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge,

expect as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the

foregoing true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the County of

_____________________, State of California.

Dated: April 19, 2011. By:___________________________________ Savannah Ally Jackson Plaintiff

EXHIBIT LIST

SAVANNAH JACKSON V. DECISION ONE, ET AL Case No: SI CV CV 1051088

EXHIBIT 1 - PROMISSORY NOTE

EXHIBIT 2 - PREPAYMENT RIDER

EXHIBIT 3 - DEED OF TRUST

EXHIBIT 4 - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

EXHIBIT 5 - SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE

EXHIBIT 6 - AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF SOT

EXHIBIT 7 - ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

EXHIBIT 8 - NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE # 1

EXHIBIT 9 - TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE # 1

EXHIBIT 10 - NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE

EXHIBIT 11 - RECISSION OF TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE

EXHIBIT 12 - NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT AND LETTER ROGATORY

EXHIBIT 13 - NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE # 2

EXHIBIT 14 - TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE # 2

EXHIBIT 1

PROMISSORY NOTE

NOTE

.1.!!!!1 BISHOP ICWy]

4116 NORTH 2Jl.1) STREET. B~bop, CALIFOR/lo1" 93514

ll'l<lpcny .-.-...]

I . BORKOWER'S PRO~US£ TO PAY In ,elUrD for _loan lhalllgve received. I promise 10 pay U.S. $304,500.00 (Ihla UIlOUIlI is called "PrincijW'), plus

inww, 10 tho order of tile Leader, The Lender is 0 .. <101011 ODe 1ttQrtp~ C_pany, LLC. I wiD make all paywenu Wldu !his Nace in Ibe fonn of cub, cbcck or rnooey order.

I IIIIIknWId tIw tbe LcncIer may IWISfu IhiI N~ Tho LcncIer or anyone wbo I.akea Ibis Noce by uaosfer and wbo is eoWJcd ... rrai,"C pa)'llltW "*' IIIiI Noxt ill alled tbo ' Note HoIdu.· ,. """"""

I"", ........ ill be ~cd on WlpIid priatipal W'IIiI tho full _of PriDcipllllli beeo paid . I wiU ply irAcr ... :u. yeuly nit 01 '.62'10.

The irw:r ... raIC: mjWted by IlW Scaloo 2 is tbo raIC: I will pay 00Ib before aod after Ill)' dcf",," described in Seclion 6(8) oflhil NOlet 3. PAYM£NrS

(AI Ttmt ... d PliI<;e of P&yaWIIi

I will PO), priDtipil and inter", by makin& I paymelll eve'Y molllh.

! will make my molllhly Plymelll on 1M 1ST day of u.cb momb bclinnin& on JAA'lJAKY I , 2007. I will m&ke ~ ~mel\U cvny Il1Omb WIliJ I have paid all of tbo priDtipll and iI\Le,C$I ltd an)' O\lIer clw.n4cacribed below tba!!II\IIY owe under !his NOlet ~ lIIUDIhIy paymelll wiD be IpplicDISer!his Note. I will pay IhosoI: amounu; in full on thai date, wblcb is ~ the "Marurily o.tc,.

I will II:I:lU my mtQhIy p.oymellllll 3023 i lSBC WIJ'. Fori Mill, Soutll CvoI.la>I 29115 or III diffcrclll plK.c if ~Wrcd by Iho NoIe Holder.

(8 ) Amou.al or M"",l.hIy Psy ...... " My IDDI'llhIy payma>l will be i111be a/lIOWlt or u,s , $1,948.75.

". BORROWfJI.'S RIGHT TO PII.£PAY I 1lI~ !lit rigbl 10 make jIIIYQll:lll$ of l'rillc:ipaI ill any time befon:!bey arc dut . A paymonr of l'rincipaJ only is

knoW1l as I ·Prepa~m.· Wbell [ maJ;;e I Prepaymem. [will leU tbe NOIC Holder ill writln& \hall am doina.o. I may not dc5i~\C! I Plymolll as I PrepaymtDI ifllllvc DDt made ill Ibc wonrhly payrDemt dut WIder !be NOIe.

I may mal:e • f\lll Prepaymonr or panill Prt:nymeru witbout payinj I Prepaymem clwac. The NOIe Holder will USC my Prcpaymcms 10 red," !be aulOWlI of f' rillc:ip&l1l\I! I owe ~r Ihls Note. HOwe'/cr. lbe Nou: Hol4er!my apply my Prepaymtnr 10 the oa:rued aod WIj)iid inrerc~ onlbe f'repaymcnr amoIIOI. before IWlyu., my I'rcpaymonr 10 .ed," lbe 1'rillc:ip&l1WOlWl of Ibc NOlI:. If I m:W. panill "Prepo.ymc.oI. Ibcre will be DO ehao&I5 ill tho! due date 0. ill tho! amounr of my mImlbly payment WIleN tho! NOIC Holder'area ill wrilin& 10 tbose chanaa. 5. LOAN CHARGES

If I Law. which applia 10 !his loaD and wtUo:h $eU maaimum loaD ~aci. is fmally ~wI.o thai !be inlerQl or otbet loan dluaa COUeaed or 10 be collected iII~ wilb!his loan eueed Ihf peI'IlliMd limiD. !beD: (~III)' such lola clW'lc ib.aU be redlad by !be _ PCetIWy 10 raWte!be dluaelO!he permiaod limit: aod (b) III)' iWIIS aJreidy ooUec\ecl from me wbEh eu:eaIed pamiII(I(I I.irniq will be rdun;!ed 10 me. The Noce Holder .... y dIoose 10 make !his refu.rad by mu.:iIIi tile Principal I owe WIder !his Nou: or by IIIlk.ina: • din(t ~ 10 lilt. If I tdund redllCCS f'JincipaJ. !be red..:tiQp will be trwcd as I p.onW f'n:paymeDI. 6. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED

(A) Lale Char&e COl' (hudl>C Ps)'lUt'lIl If !be NOIe Hoklu has not received die full aDlDWlI of auy wolllhly paymeol by die end of TEN calelldar d<lys dler

!he dalC! il a due. I will pay lLa~ cIw,e 10 !he NOIC Holder . The aDlDWlI oflhc chata. will be 6.0 '" (but IlOI Iw lhaD $5.00) uf my OV.NIIe paymem of pr\II:lpaIlIIKI ~.c~. I WIll pay thIS Lale clivi. promptly bul only on:;c 00 eaeb \ale paymcnr..

(8 ) lldlI.ull If I do DDt pay tho: full_ of Q<;b womhly ~ 011 !be dale iI a due. I will be III dcfauJl. (e) Sotb: o! Dcl':uIl: If I am ill defaull. !be Noce KoIdcr may lend me I wrineo IIOtice \C!llina "",!hit it I do DOt pay !be overdue arnowx

by I "fWn date. !be NOIe Holder IDly require me 10 pay immedialcly !be full _ of Principal wbiclIlw DDt bwl

• . IK)toI.u .... ut·oS XJtiHTTU I'KU''' Y

I hI'"t lilt ri&IK 10 IIloile pI)1iIeIlU of 1'nIIc:;piI " iI:JY DCII: before dIty M1: D . "pI)-mel:II of PnIDpiI 0IIlf. kIKvIoll as I "P'repa)'lIIClL' Wbco I miU I i'rrpl)lDrIIl. I orill tdlliIe ~ ~ iD ........ !h:JI11ID..,... 'O. I . y DOt ~ a pa)'lDI':I:Il as I ~1IIeIII if I hI'~ _made III lilt IDDrIIhIy pI)'IDUD dw \IDdu ~~.

! :!'~y make I full 1'rqNo)'I:IeflI Of patiIJ f'l'Cl)f.)'I!IIIW wDout ply ... I f'l'cpI)~1II dw,t . The: Noxtc Holder will ~ my Prcpaymw lS \0 ,educe Iho IfDI)WII of 1'nIIc:~ tIIolt I O"'~ UIIOW !his Now. HQ\Io'C""t r, Iho Nou: Holc~er may apply my J>rtpl)1IIeIII CD Iho ~ aM WIpIicI Inwac on Iho Prepa)'lDtlllIlDClWll, before &ppIYiaa my f'l'ep.lymoill. 10 ,educe !be PriDoipalllDClWll of !be 1'0,*. If I make • p&ni&I Prllplymtllt. !ben: will be II<) chan&el iD tho! due date Or iD tho! amounI

of my IJIDruhly pa)'llll!Zll un\go "'" NI)I$ Holder oar_ ;., wririna ro rho .. Chanall. 5. LOAN CHARGES

If I Law. whio;h ljIpliQ ro IhiJ lour and which KII maximwu lour clw,e., is fuWly irutrplCle<i ~ thac !be inlcrUL 01 odie. lour char,"" coUccled or CD be wlleaed ID IIIIOIIfCljoO with this lou ~ the permin.cd limilS. then: (I ) lIlY IIICII lour clw&e Ihill be reduo:td by the ImOIIilIlII!I:eW.ry CD reduce the char,t IQ the pc:rmin.cd limil: aM (II) any IWIlI alr~y col\c(te(i from me \lr1lich ~ permiUb1 IimilI will be rel\uxled 10 me . Tbe Nou: Holder ~y ~ 10 mab: this refwld by rcducioJ the Principal I owe uMu !his Nou: or by IIIiItiD& • direct plymeol CD me. If I refund rtduc:es Princ:ipaI. the reduaioo will be bUlCd u. panill Prcpa)'lllt:Dl. 6. 8ORROW£1l.' S FAlLUlU: TO PAY ASREQUlRED

(A) Lau Clwte for Ovmllit PIJ"DlalIi

If lilt Note Holder bas DOl r~ivod the M11m011111 of Ill)' lllD;DIhIy JIIIymenl by the ~ of TEN ~ ~)'llfter the cUre it is due. [will. JIIIY.1Ite cIwac 10 the Note HoJdc1. The: mount of the cIw" will be 6.0 '10 (but DOt Jess thaD " .00) of my overd ue plYIIleDl of princ:ipalloIld. inlerw. I will pay this late chu,e plOnlplly but only 0'" OD o:..::h Late Jlll)'meDl.

(B ) Derault If I dollOl pay !he full amount of IliCIr lIIOIIthly plymelll 011 the.we il is due. I wUJ be iD dcfaull. (C) NoUee c! Odaulr

If I am ;., dcfauli, the NoIe Holder may KIltlIDt a ","lWI rIOIice ~llin& "'" tIw if I do rIOI poy!he overdue amoU!U

by , ecrWn .we, <be N_ Holder may require me ro pay immcd.Wely the I\IU ~ of PriDoipol wl\iI;b Iw !IOl been paid IoIld. aU the iPluest that I 0-.,-.: OD d:w IIDDWII . That chIC = be:U low! 30 dIIYllfter <be cU~ OIl which !he IIOlice is mailed 10 me or delivered by acbu _ .

{OJ No Waba By NoI.c Holder E .... II if, :u, IiI:m ",ben I om iD dcbuli. !he Note Holder does rIOI requirc me: 10 pay immedimly iD full as deocribed

abcrie, lilt NoIe Holder will JIill hI~~ the ri&bl1O dolO if I am ill clef ..... " a Iller tiaIe ,

MULTISTATE FIXED RATE NOTE-SilII;lc FllIIily-.'&IlIlIo MatlFnddie Mac USU'OR.\I L'\STRlr.>IE.'T .·o<m )100 11(11

(pQ1~ I of 1 P"l"i

III 111011 nUim I!! f~ IIlI W II

) hyma" ~ Note 11010«'1 eo..u and EIIptaIia If !he NOie Holder Ius required me 10 pay immediately ill fuU u described above, !he Note Holder will have !he ,;,bl

10 be paid ~~ by me for ill of its COiU J.Od npe~, ill enfon:ina!his NOIe 10 !be UItIU IlOl protlibiltd by applW;,b1c: law, Tbo$C: 9'~1lIoeS inr;ludI:, for eumpie, reasonable auomey, ' fees, 1, GIVIS"" ..IFNOTIC£S

UnIqo IIppliQble II.w ,,~qulm a diffucllI metlo>d, lUI;)' DOti;c: Ihallll\ll.l be ,r.-en 10 me WIdet!his No!e wiD be ,iven by deliverina ~ or by mailiDa;1 by flm cWs mail II> me al!be PTopeny Addreu above Of 1111 different add,us if I ,ive tbo: Nocc Holder I DOliu of Ill)' diffcUlll add'HI .

Any Dllliu WI anw be ,iven w!he NOb! Holdef UDder !his NOIC will be liven by deliver\n& it or by mailiD& ic by fin! cWs mail 10 llle Noel: Holder AI !he oddress lIMed ill Stction 3(A) above or. I ditferClll oddress if I iW ,iven I IlIIIke of Ihal differelll addreu. 8. OBUGATlONS O~' PERSONS UNDER TIns NOTE

If more !han one per~ lips this NOIt, ~ peflOQ is fuUy J.Od personally oblipled w k=p ill of the promisel made in thQ.~, inl;:ludina!he promise 10 pay !he fulllDlOUllll ov.oed . AIry penwI wIlD ila ,lW'&DIOr, .... tI)' or mcIonef of this NOie is abo oblill!oed 10 do Ibese 1IIin&a. July penoa whD!aka over 11-= obJip1iom, ineludiDa till: oblipiom of • ,uanruor, !.UreI)' or ~ndg<ier of !his Nou:, is lo/w obH,lICd 10 Yep ill of till: promises made in !his NOie . The NOIc Holder may enforce iu riahU UDder !his NOIe lplnst eacb peflOn i!ldividually 0, aa:airw ill of W lO,e!her. This mUN

IIw any one of w may be required 10 pay &Il of m.: IWOWlU ov.al UDder !his NOie. 9. WAlV£RS

I lI'III any ocher penon who Ius ob~pliom UDder !his Note .... aive \be rigIIB of PrescDlllll:81 a.od NOla of DisbcmOf . "P're5enDDelll" muns rho ria.IU 10 reqllire the Nou: Holder 10 demaDCI PlymeDt of amounu due , "Notice of Oiihooo," me&III the ri&hz 10 reqWrc Iho Note Holder 10 ,ive CIOlicc 10 ocbet peflOlIIllw aolOI.IlIII due ha ... e DIll been paid, 10. lr.'o"lFORM SECUJI.F.D N01'1:::

This 1'10lIl is • llDiform imlnImtaI with lirniled variatiom in iOIDI: jurisdiaiom. In addiclon 10 \be protectiolll aiven 10 the NOIe Holder under !his Nw. a MOf1iIae, Deed ofTrusl. Of Security Deed (Iho "Scc:urily 1RSU'WllC1lI ") , da!oed the <ame dale u chis Nou:, proLIICU ibc Nolt Holder from pcwible iouel ""tIich mlJht resull if Ilia no< keep Iho promi>el IIIhkb 1 m»;e in 1M Nw. Tlw Security IIIIlNI1lt8I describes how a.od UDder wtut condiliom I "",y be mjuired 10 mW: immediate payment in fuU of ill &IOOWIU I 0'0'C WIder !his fobc. Some of chose O3IIdiUoOl :w dcseribcd u follows,

If aU Of any pan of Iho Propaty or lUI;)' I~ in Iho Property is 50Id or I .. mfmed (or if Borrower is DIll a IlIlU1&I pe:tlOD IlOd I bmtrlCw iDlcre51 in Borro....:r is sold Of !l"ansferrecl) ""ithoul Lender', prior wtiCleD consenc, Lende r lWIy requite immedlalc ~yment in Ml of ill IUlI>S _urcd by cbio Security loalnll"l\enc , However. cbio oJ)tion w...u IlOl be e.un:iacd by I..codet If $\IC:b ..... 1If~i$e is prohlbilal by Applicable Lo .....

If t.e.>dcr u.c~ises !his opQorl. Lc:nder Wli live Bort'O""tl" IIOlica of occ.c:leraliol1. The IIOIiI;c ohalI provide a period of 001 Jess chiD 30 dlys from Iho dale !he OOI~ is ,i\'CQ in KCOrdance wilb Section IS .... ithin which Borrower mW! pay ill &umI MCWed by !his Sccurir)' 1~lr\IrIICnc , If Borrower flil$ w pay!heu 'WIlli prior 10 che upintioa of Ibis period, Leoder may invoa any remedies permined by Ibis SccwiIy lnmwntlll ....w.ou. funber ooU<e or demand 00 fIon"owcr .

WITNESS ntE tIANO(S) AND SEAl.(S)Ol' nlE UNOERSIGNED

_________ _____ ~(S .. I) .-

EXHIBIT 2

PREPAYMENT RIDER

4. BOIUlO WI.:l!. 'SRlGHTTO PJU:l'AY I have tho rip! 10 maU paymen15 of principol 01 ""y Lime: bdo~ LbeJI "'" due . A paymoru of

princip>J only is knoWLl as I "prtpaymeru" . Whon I mm. . prepaymenl, 1 will wu tho NOle Holder in wrilina thai I am doin& $0 . I II1lIY not deoiJnaw. paymeru u a Propaymenl if I have DOt made.1ll tho molUbly paymelllS due under tho NOle.

1 may make. partial prepaymcru wilhoul payina:Llly propaymcll! chua •. If I mUc a full prepayment within 3 y.ar($) of the dale of this NOIe. l:oar"" 10 P'y , prepaymeru chuLle of 6 months advance interest on the lIIlOUnl prepaid in exceu of 20% of tbo original kwllrIIOWU. Tho: Note Holder will lise all of my prepayments 10 red..ce tho amoonI ofprincipol Ihnl owe under !his Now. However. tho NOIe Holder lI1lIy apply my Prepaymelll 10 tho ~ and unpaid inwresl on the Prepaymelll amount, before :apply"", my Ptepaymcnt 10 redu.ce the Principal amou.nr. of tho Note . If I maU. putial prepaymeru. thore will be no cha.na:es in !he due dale or in tho amou.t1I ormy molllllJy payment IlIlless!be Note Holder agreq in wrilin& \0 those c~es .

By SIGNING BELOW, Ptepaymem Rider .

Borrower a.ooepts aod ""= 10 Ity' Y"11lS and proVjsiolll colllllned in this

IJJU-~ ______________ (S •• I)

.~

______________ ~(S •• I) .~

IllIllll m III [1111t1 ill lUI m 1111

EXHIBIT 3

DEED OF TRUST

~5-.z,

INYO-M9NO TITLE COMPANY Af,.,. Roeo,din& IltlUrn To:

Da::i.;oo One MOil",," C<>oI1>any, Ll C 3023 HSBC W.y Fon Mill. Soulh Caroli"" MIS

, 1IIIIIIII IIIIIiIIIIIIDiTIlllllIlIIllIl ·-llf'10 Colilty ~eeordet BMRLY J HARRY Co Rteordtr Off ice DOC- 2006- 0004926 Q\oe ' _ . , " 13" T ....... .!.y, NOV 30 , 2006 10,44 :18 "l~ JL" ' SZI $ll . '''JllCC sn." s~s ,n .'" It! Pd S4U3 ~'br·0m0531S2

ONO/RI/I-I]

__________ ISpo<o .l.1>o .. TlIir 1,1110 ,-'" _"" 0.1&1 -----____ _

OO I ·IO~

DF.FINlTIONS

Loon "umboT U6006I007264/ DEED OF TRUST MIN: 1000J7%OOOOOS660J,

WoM!"'If!e<l In ITOJltip\e _ion< of ,hi. doNmenI ate deflned btl ..... and .. be. word< are def,n«l in S<ctlons l, I I, 13, 18. 10 and 21. C«Wn rule< rtlwi", (heu$O&e"f_rdo used in 'hi. docIIrnenI ...... ., provided in Soelion 16.

1.0.) "s..,,, rity hut .. ",."," means Ihif; documom, which i. datod OCT08f.R U , lOO6,lOJ<Ihtr wilh all

Rid.n t(I,h;, 4oowncn1. e (8) · lkIfT""-... • i. AL'iSON J DliNK, A SINGLE wmlAN. Bonower is I 'ru>l I.OIdefll'lisSmlri,y * I .... rumcm. (C) "L<nde1-" i. Oedsion 0... MIWlI:aK" Con'p"ny. LI£. Lender i •• I.IM ln:D I.IABILrfV CO~IJ'ANY "'1I .. i .... """ •• i"inl w'IISct IlIe 10 .... of NORTH CNWLlNA. l.ender", Iddrec. I. 3023 IISIIC WAY, ~UKT M'LL, SOUTII CAKULI"" 1Y1 1 ~.

(U) '7 .... , .. " i. ClilCAGO TITI .r. lNSUItM<CR COMPANY, 171 N. Clark S,I"ftI, C~k:oltO, ILLINOIS 6060131!14. (}., "MERS" i. Mortll"Se 8«1'onic Jl.e,iWllli<>n Sy ........ Inc .• \lERS i,. seporll< «:xp<>'IIIi<>n "",,1, .... in' ool<-Iy ... noml_ (0, L...~ and L...rder', .LLC:te\OOrt..-.l ""igns. Ml::kS ;" 11< ba>tf1dary und~r L~1o s.a.rlLy I n"",IJI(>IlL . MERS is o'1 .. iud and ... iMin, under ,110 I ..... .. r Del • ...,... and hal .. add, ... and 'elq>t>one n .. nI><, of P,O. Ilo~ 1026, Ain'. MI 4SSO' ·1026. 'el. (US) ~79·MERS.

( ~) .~~ ........ ,h. promiuory ...... ,iJn<d by Borrn"""..-.l dOled ()CT()KF.R 26. 1006. Tho Note ... 'e< ,II>, 1Iutro_ ",... L.end<, TILKEE IlUNURED .·OUR TIIOUSAND FlVf: HUNDRED AND OOIIOO1hs Doll.n (U.S.SJ04 .SOO.00J plu, in' .... ' . Ba,"'''''', ..... P""'" .... 'o pay thi. dob< in "'lui .. _ic: P'y"'''''' ' """ '0 pay ,be deN in full ..... 1 ... , ,,,",, DEC~;~Un;K 1. 1036. (G) . ...... pffiy" moat .. the properly Ill .. is do$cribal boeIow wilier ,he ....,i'\ll ·r .... f .. <;>fltiV".;n'be Ptope<1)' .•

(II) "!.uon" .-..am the d<Ot .... icIencc<L by ,be 1'1"'0 . plus in' ..... ' ... y prepaymen, o""'&eo and III< chari'" I!ut undo, ,he Not •• and all .urnsd ... undtt Illi. Socuri'y Instrument. plus im.' ....

20 06 4 926

(11 · Rld .... • rrana oil Ridm 10 ,hi. Security InslrunlC1ll ,Iu, ..., o.u:cuted b~ 1Ion'o""eI. The: 10110"';'11 Ride" .... 10 be eJ.C<;u,cd by DoI'fO\\"eI (oheck 001 " Ipplicable] :

DAdju"abI~ ltlo,. Ridtr

D lIlIllOOn Killer

01-4 Family RiM,

OC<>rOOminium Ride< OS«ond HOIIII! Rider

Ql'lannoa Uno! Dovdopn>eru Rleler OOU>ert.) [o.pe<l~1

oBi_l, hymen. Rider

(J) • Appl kabl~ Low" mo .... Jll COIltroUin. apfIIitab\e federal. 01 ... wi local ,1lI\1''', tq\Il.tions. ordinances and admirti"rati'e ",Jell In<l orden (,hat ......... off«1 of I .... ) .. ~II .. all o.pplicabl. r.nal. "".H.ppealoble judiei" ""ink", •• (KJ ' e "",munl!), rusociatloa Du .. , .'ca, . nd ~mrnU" "'""" all dues. fees, ..... smt!II.ard 000 otwt'" 'Iu' .... imp<>Xd on 8o<ro .. '" Of.be!'ropelt)' by I COI"OWminium ...oci~""". bomeo.....m _ialion or simi, .. orzani .... ion. (I., " F.kelr\>fIl< t'u.1Is T"' ... r ... • II"ftI\$ any IraN(.". of form. 0100 lhan. I~ionorili""od by <!led, drah, or simil ... pope.- in .. tument. which i, i."lalrd d,,,,ulh on "",ronic ,erminal. telepIIonic insl""""", ton"4'"'OT, or """,,",it .apt 10 .. 10 onSer, ;,,"""".0< .",hori.<. filWlCial in>,ilUlion 10 debil or •• cdi. an """""nt. Such <Om includ ... but ;, I\QI limited 10. pOi",..,f.»!. !.-..ufen, ""orrwod ,eller mochine lrans.><lions. " .... fm iniliOloil by .elep/Ione . wi", " ..... r ..... and IU.Ommd clcaJi ngbouse ... "'r ..... (.\ 1) ·~:.rn. ... I" m," ~./Io$e i • ...,..haI uedescribed in """.;(0) (1'1) "MiK<i la _ I"ro<ft<b" means Illy oompensal;oo, sen!.,.,.,.., award ofdamall", 01 proceed. paKI by ""y .hi ... pany (o,ho, than i1l$u~ proc«<l3 ~d unde, the _erag .. described in StoctiO/l 5) roo: (i) damage' '0. Of deslrucliotl of •• ho Pn>pony; (iil ()(H'odannaIion o'OIhe, IOl:.ing of oll o,""y p.ut of.hol'rop<ny: (iii) c:onvq"""" in I;'" of condemnaIion; or (iy) mi.ttprese", .. ions of. Of omi .. iono .. 10. the val"" >ndIor CO!Idi,ion of.lK: Propeny. to ) ".\Iortg_", l",u"'l><t" means inSUf"llla: proi«1ing \..Imdor agol ..... the """""Y"""" of. or <Id ... l, ott. lIIe

""". (I') ·I'niodl~ "-110&11" ",..." the ""ulmy Khoduled lJIIOIlnt duo for (i) prinei"", """ int ..... , ullder ,ho NOI •. pi", (ii ) any amoun .. uodo, s.c.ion ) of this Sewri'y [""""""II<. (Q) " 11.£51'''" mo .... the Re.aI Est ... S.III.....,,' I'tQ<a!urn Ac, (12 U.S.C. n(i(ll .. «<;.) and i" i""I""""ing retuillion. 1I.'luIOl;"" X (24 C.F.R. I'".n J~) ... lIIey miglrl b< ~ from lime 10 'ime. or .... y adc!i,ional or .~ lecioll1ion or ""ull,ion 'hOi JO •• "" the..",. subj«lnwl.t. A. ulClll In Ihi. s.cw;IY b'''rurtW:fti. 'RESPA' ~ 10 all ""luin:tt1O:fU. and "",nc,io .. ,h;l! I re impo:Joed in ",!"d 10. 'f«k,oIly «I<Uoil ",<ml",ol"",,' ""OIl ifth" 1..w",.J..><> ..... ~il'y .. . ·(..!<;rally "" .... " """"''0 I~' """« II.ESPA. (R) "SucnsMr In Inl .... 1 .... 8" .... 0' ... '. · muns .... y p.uty!lw .... <01 .... 'i'lo ... the l'nJpotIy, whtII>er or no! thai puT)' h", .. ~ 8<mo,."er·, <>blip"'" under lilt NOlO oodIOIthi, S«:urity 11l$t!'Um<nt.

TRANSFER OF lUGllTS IN TIm PROPERTY

~ beneficiary ofilli. ScounlY I .. ""","", i. MERS (soIoI1" Mminee for Ltnd.t and L<rdtf', ~""~~ ~~ ... i",,) OJ><! the ~ .. ..-oj ,"i, .. of MEMS. Thi, Sce.,ity 'n .. """.'"

"'Pl ymenl of , .... lcwt. and 011 m\O ......... , ..... """ ..-oj:;~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~ ~• "and .. .-nrn"IIl"Id.rlhi.S«urit~ Iy tran" ccnvO)'J 10 Tru .. "". '" '","I.

i C .... nty ., ___ " ITYJ>< of Recordi", lur:"'i."",,]

S I::I:: ATTACIiI::D SC II EDUL E ' ,1. "

Do"1 ".J.- tlJ,k TI\.I>4

~S u,J-" ,

20064926

wbkh curmllly h~ !be IIddms ol _'_!!JN"O"""'"'"~"·."J",,,,.,'.nL_,,,,,,,, ________ _ [Sntel)

• , •• ,..,."' ____ ""', ____ _ ' CalilO<lli. iCily)

~J514 (" I'fopony AIId",..'): (Zip Code)

TOGETHER WITH all 11>0 ;"""'>......". now or herancr.-..I "" ,I>< ",openy • .,>dalll'2Semtn ... appunenill'lCo$, and r,uures now or hoa.fIer • IWI of ,be PrnpeRy. All rq>locemenl. ard additions ob>.ll 01.., be ~ I>y ,hi. Secutl"Y'S<rumtn!. All of ,he forelloin, i. ,<ferro<! to in lhi, !iecIlril)' IllSln""em .. ,he

S '1'roJ><'r11: 1Iorro\I-er T>liIldi ihd ... ,.. thaI MERS IIoIds only klill l illclotllelnloru!.,W>'oe<lby \ I!om>wer i~ Ill;' Security b,.I"""",,,, hut. ir~ to <OnIply willi I.,. o ••• mom, MEltS (as notnilft for

n .\ Len6et and LenII!:r' , .uccesson and "';grII) hIS lhe ri&lll: to ., •• dle any 0, all or lbo$e inttte$ll. ;ncludi.., . . .. G, .. , bu! ..xlimi,«I 10. !lie ri&hl 10 1"",,100. and $<11 lilt I'I'openy; and lolal: ... yltlionrcquin:<iof Lmdor ~ ~)..:Ij"8. bu. "'" limi",d 10, n:I~ and U/nlilli Ill;' S«urj,y InslrummI. ~ .AJ IIOR ROWElt. COVENANTS til., Borro .. ~r i. I .... fully Itised of"'" oot .. c hcffby CQ . .... ye<l ODd"" !he "'J I" ri&hl to IratIO .... tonvq' llIt ....",.rty ond Ill., "'" l'ropMy i. """""""'red. n<q>< for encumbrarns of

" rt<:Ord. BolTOWtf .,arran" ond will dcftnd Sercrally the lill< to ,be Propffl'y ' lii ... al l claims atId demand •• /' A 1ubjec\ \0 .... y CfICU/l"branca of record. y" T HIS SECU RITY INSTRUMENT oornbi ..... uniform oov.nlP\' r", na<ionaI "'" atId "",,·uniform

CUVftWlf< ... illt li"';,rd variations by Juriodicl ..... to <Ol1$Ii'ut~ • uniform """,rity instrurnem 00'1";", real "",petty.

UNIFOR M COV[NAI\'TS. _ onI Lendercov ...... and agm: IS folio" ', ' I. Paym.n, ,.,. /'rlnd""l. I ........ '. J::ocro,.. I'tm$. f'rf ... ,._ Cbara<", .tHll.a" Cba"Ra. So"","""

Wli p&y ,,"hen d"" \1>< prinr;ip.ol of. onI irKe:r<:sI 011 . II>< debt .yidenced by ,I>< Note onIany p<q>ty",,.,n 010 .. ,,,, ..... I .. ~ dIU,.. due under <ht NOlO. 80""",., Wli allO pay r""". ro.. Escrow Items pur....,, ' o Section 3. PaymtrK. <!lit un6tt the Note onI Ibis Security Ins""n23u 111011 be INd. in U.S. <urm>ey. H~... If any <beck '" "' ..... i""""""", .-.uiyrd by l..emlor IS p&ymrnI und<r the " "'H" this S«\Iri,y I"""...,.... is returned to ~ unp.oid. Lendet may requi~ th .. any '" 011 otoboajuem p.1ymefl1. d". urdct \he N" .. on<! ,h i, -'''';'y 1".., .. .--. be....- in """Of """,,of II>< followina fOIIDl ... lCI<ard by Lmder: (01 .1Sh; (b) """'"l' 0fIkI"; (~) emir .... <he<k. bank .beck. ,..,...urer·1 .heck 0< cashier', tIIock. """,ided ... y ,,,,,h <beck ill drawn upoo OIl ;""iMlon .....,.. dtP,osil. ore i"",red by " f<der.ol "JI<'Il")', insltumC1\lol i'y. Of <!'Ki.y; or (d) ElocI<OIli<: fund, TTansfer.

raymer .. "'" """mod received by Lendef~"hetI ~Y«l .. ,tie ""'''iondc.si, no'«I in ,I>< NOlO"''' .uch "'!>or I"">lion IS rn:IY be .... i'n>\<d by L.end<f In ;IoOOOrtlance " ith \be notice pro.i.",,,, in Seclion IS. Lende, may rerum any p,ay",nn 0' pmill pay,.,..", if,he pay"""" '" pmill ~ _I"",rr",""" to brio, tho l.o.ln <UrT<1II . I.eodc, rnay oocq>< any pay"",,.. 0' pani., poymet1l insuffoci .. \ to brina the L.oon ell"""'. without wai~ of .... y ri"",. tIe<eUOlder 0' p .. judice to it> ,iii''' to ,~w<h payment '" p;II't ili payro .. u In Ibo flu.,.,. but Lmder i. not obli",ted to apply such poy",""" II the ,imo'''''' payment. ore ~rd. U...,h Periodic P~ymm i.applird .. ofi" Khedul«l d ... tSar.,. \bon t..ea6e, nted not ~y i:lt .... t on "noppHed fun<iJ. i.end<-r may J>old such unopplied IWIth "", il Bornr""" nuI<cs poy"""" '" brina.tIe leAn ourret\t. If 8om>\<." .... not do "" within . .. ...,n~I;>lo period of timo . [.A,nder slWl oit"'" ~y ""'h funds '" raurn thom 10 1Jonu .... , . If not .ppHed earl;',. such Ilnxb ... iII be applied to tIrt ...... andi'" p'-;IlCip.oi bol __ unde, the: Nolo Immedi .. ely prior lO JorK .... U .. . No Orr ... or <loim ,,'hick Bomt ...... rttitht .... ~. now 0, In ,lie !'utu ... Iplnsr Lmder ",",I ret;"'" BotTOWer from malrina payment. due unde, tire NOle and this $«;urity I""",...."t or performing t~ oovmam. atId .,,.,..,.,,,, secur«l by this Securi,y l"'tNmel\l,

1. Appl!ca\!oa or PoY"""" or f'ro<o:t<k. E..«pI .. otl><rwiK .....,ribod in ,bi, Section 2. all poy..,.," ooteptrd ODd "WIled by Unde, .hall be applied in tire following order of p,lority : (0) irK ..... duo urKltt the N",e; (b) p'-;IlCipal due "lIde, tbe Nolo; (oj orooum. duo "lid .. Se<:<ion 1. Suc:h p"ytlltrltl 1II>1! be applied '" _ h ~iodj~ Payment in the order in ""'1dI i, bo<.tmtdue. Any remainin,arroun .. Wl I be appIird r. ... to I ... <:barJ"". $<COOd to any ",lin """"",,,due: W"Ida thi, Security Ins, l"IIrTIOIII. ani lhen to red""" the principal balance of l11e N"'e.

200649 26

If 1J:nolc. tte<:i .... p.yn\tRI from 1Ioml ..... for .lltIinquont f'criod;' PAy"...,,' which i"dud ... surf,.,"", _ 10 POY "1 I .. e<~d"". a.. po,..,.". may be applied 10 !he ddinquenc p"ymem:nl t~ I .... tw~. If mor. II'Ian ont l'I!ri<.:Iic r .ym<nI;' outOUndinl. lcncIcr may opplY"r POymenl =ei""" (rom 1Iom> ..... 10 "'" <q>a)m<fl' (If It.; Periodic I'.y......". if. ard to ,he . " .... ,hao. """h ,,"1"""" """ be poid in full. To the .AI,,'" ,r... '''1 e.<e» ",;,,, ./."{ U", p.yn""" .. OW1ic<llu , ... full "","'"'" <>10""",-..- I'<,iodi< I"J_MI, _h •• <w may be applied to ""1 ,.,., chuger due, V<JIWlW')' P""'Y"""''' >ball be '!'Plied r,r1I to ""1 p~m<fI1 olurcer and <ben .. dt«ribed in lilt 1'1'", ••

"'ny apfIl i.>lion of 1"1_. iI\SU1OIn pt<><m)s. '" Mi>ccJl..,..,.... J'n>tr<xb 10 pri"";",,, c!ut """ ... ,h. NOI. $hall DO< e.<loocI Of po$Ipono tho d ... 411., or <bange !he amoum, of ,he P<riodjc r armen".

l. h n'oOCf >/WI p<q to Lmderon the d.y l'e<iodi< "'"1"""" .... d ... under the Note. u .. il ,he N_ i. paid in full .• rum (!he ' Fund,') to p"",;(Ie for JIlLYm<nlllr~wUsd"" for: (a) lUes arol ...... ''''''IS lind ",I"cr il ...... w/lkh con .. 1.;. priori!y~ ,hi, So:cumy I",~" a lien or encurnb......,. on !be Propo"Y; (b) 1C»C!w>ld poymen<Hlf 'rouad ...... on!he Propony, if 11'11; (0) premiums lor ""1 oro aU im","",," I't<iuirn;\ by Lond .. UMo' Se<\i<m S; IIld (d) MonP&~I""'ontel'remiWfl>. if ony. 01 aoy ... "", payable by lkI~r '" Lende, in lieu ohbe pa~rntnI of MORIIg<' Insurance prwUurIIlI in at:ClOn1ance wilb lb. """,i,ions <'If Seclion 10. These ilem! an: <.11ed -£screw IICW6.· "I ori&ination or • ""Y lime durinillbe .. nn of lbe ~. Lender mil) ""lui", ""I COll"WnUnily "...xi •• i<>n Dues. ~. trod " ..... """" •• if""Y. be "'''owtd by IlofTO'ol'<1". and ,uch d ..... f..,. ....: aseument. shall be an Eoc:.ow 1,..... 1Jorn, .. ",. sh.111'fOIllP'1y fumlsh '0 Lt.ndn all noo.ice> of """""'" 10 be paid ufliSn thi. Se<:!i<>n. Borro .. ~, "'all pay Unda ,be I'und$ for Eoc:""" 11 ..... unI ... Ltrdt, .... iva 8om>..",.', obIillliOll '0 pay !he Funcb. for any or all E>c"' .... 1t ....... ~ may """;vclk>tTo...,,·, OOl',a1ion '" pay 10 t.er.kr f'Unoo"> 1o. ony o. all Eoc"' .... Ilem> lIl ... y Ii ...... ""y >Uc/I wai"", may only be io writi",. In !he ev ... of_h ... ivt"t, Borrower d\all pay di_Iy. ",hen and who", pay.ble. !he amount. due IOf ."y "-'row I,,,,,,, fot whid! pay<lXfll of FIlnd. .... ~ .... iveel by Lender ...... if Unde< f<"IUi .... shall furnish ro I..m:Jer ..:«ipl' .,""",,"i!IJI wdt 1"Ymen< "';lbin SIIClI,imc period .. lendc:f rnay rcqui .... Bono,...,.'. obll",io" to make .1ICIt payrn<lll' ond ro p"",ide ....,.;1'1. shall fo • .all purpo»es be <IofflIt<l (0 be • OO>"tnalIl and q,.,.",..., <;OOtain<d in ,hi, s.c..ril)' ,,,,,,,,,,, •• n. a ,he phrase '00'_ and '&~' i. usal in Seeri<>n 9. JlBono..",. i. obIill"ed '0 pay Eoctow It""" dir«!ly. "".....", '00 ... iv ... and Borro ..... roil. '0 pay ,he """""" d"" foc an Esc""" 1'<IIl. Lendtr rnay " •• ",ile ilS riVl" W'ld<r Stction 9 and pay .00-. amount ..... Bom>wer wll then be obIl!",..! oro!« S<ction 9 10 ,",,"y 10 l.mdu .. y ... ,11 """""'. l.mder may ~I<o ,be waivt"t 1I ro ... y o. all Eoc", ... U.ms III ",y ,ime by 0 l>QIicc ,iV(l'l in ~ .... i'b Set'ion I S and. upon .och "',"0':;1Ii<>n. Boml'll·'" "'all pay 10 Lome, all Punds. and iuuch OIn(IUIIII. ~ an: ,...., roquited b!I(\er Ibl, Se<:!io<l J.

I.aU:r .... y ... ""1 lime. wll<cO ..... bold 1'unW;" .. , .. '''''''~ (I&) ... ffl<icno '" ""rml' I.erolOT '0 apply ,Il< PIIIIIl. " Ill< Ii"", specif>Od """'" RESP". and (b) n<>lIQ • • C<>cd lho ..... imum ............ I ...... r can .eqoi ... under RESP,,-_ Len<ler ohaIl ..,i"",,,, ,he """""" of Funds due on lbe bM;' of CUrrer< dall and ........ Dlbl. "'Unar" of uptndirures of funtrt E..:«l'O' I,em. o. <><he"", .. in at:ClOrdance with Applicable Low.

TIlt Pund, .... 11 be bcld in ." inslitu<;"" whe deposit> .... ;","red by I f .... ral 'iI"""Y. in<tf1ll"!lmlali,y, 0' .nli'y (inctooing ~. ir~r i, an "",ilUl;"" '-'"'><>scdoposi" .... so illS"....!) Of in..,y RdenI Homo l.<W1 Banlr.. Lmder shall apply ,be F..-.;I. '" pay lho Est",w 1' ...... no I .. ..-than lhe lime speciflCOd undcT RFSP" . l end..- shall "'" oharp Bonu ...... f.,. hc)Idin,...J "I'Plyi!IJI ,be 1'","". ar>Jl\Ially analy.i!IJI ""' ... """ oaount. Of ""ril)'in, "'" Esc", .... I'ems. unl .. , tender p>ys 1Io<ro ..... ,ru ..... on , ... 1'Wl<h II<Id AP!'lioobt. Low petrni .. l.endcf '" ",,1:0 sucb • ohatJe. Unl ... .., .,_, i. made in wri,in, 0, "PI:d itallle 1..0 ... ""Ju'''' i"",,,,,, '" be Pl i<! on !he Funds. u, ...... hall "'" be r<oq<.>i....! ro poor 80""..",. any in<e",,' Of eami!IJI' on (be Furlel •. Bo<ro"'<r and J.<nder can ... _ in wri(i",. ho ... ~. Ihar I",,,,,,,, ",.n toe P'\id on tIIo Fund •. l.enda .>!l .. u ,i>. '" Bono_'.";_ ohM"".., annu.al OCO><l",inl of'lIe Fund ... ""I"irM by RESPA .

If ,be", is I ' ''<pI .. of PIIIIIl. beld in ...,row." dermed under RESPA. 1..,,600-,.-w1 ott",,,,, '0 Bo<ro ...... for.be • • au furdo in ~ willl Rl'SP ... . If ~i ....... n"'.orFun:I.heldin<><ro ...... der.n<d under RP.sP .... t...nd/:r I!WI notify lkIrrower IS ""IUi,ed by RESP .... oriel Botro,...,. ihall pay to I..mde. the amount ne<es!W)' .0 make up the sbonage in OC<I),dance wilb RPSPA. bill in no more Ibon 12 ""''''tIly pa)"lllOnt. , If !here i • • defIC;'ncy of Fund, beId in ""'''''' ... defilO:<! u'" RESP". 1.mder ihall notify Borrower IS ""Iuited by RESP". and llorrowtr shall pay '" Le ..... '~.1/lIOUJlI no<:nW)' 10 mak. up lhe der"'i'ncy in acoor<laru wi,II RESPA, but in no mort ,han 12 _hly po~""",n.

Upoll poo~menI in r"l1 of all '"""" 1C(:\l....! by lbi. Securily lnll"",,""'. l.crIClef ohall p""'l"ly ",fund '0 Borrower any Finis hold by l..mdor.

= ~ H e - , ~~

~i ::1 ~l "" ' ;~

~

! ! , l ~ ! § ; ~ -• ,

~

",-,'I 1-,n-'" '"IU'-'" i't"""'-[{ , '-"-E"r' .. , '.L., . . j •••• . •• " •• "r .~ .. , ... i " .' e. ' I' [!~'~'~~ . ~['!."'-d'OH1'!' -~qH'~!~-' .'-I\~~ '!!!'- '!'~" " ".... ,""·-1" _. i-"p,-, '- .l ~'·' , .~, "H O t~"I ~ ;'~i il i~ ~'i [~~ ~ l i~ ~ !i ~i:~ ! ~ :f~' g i~ ~~ih:r j ~;~~~ ~J ~~ ~ [:]1 .! ,-'j-'!' ••• h H .~- ,! • Wi! !:i ! ;:~~ ,11 hl 'i'· • -I:, ',_,' !i" . !1.~ , h' '[-s~~ ~.·-~I ~(Z ~1 ~~ ~l~' t-. ~ !2Pg.~ 3~~ a ~~ ~~'- I u dt~

2" --i~".!;'5' iI"'si 2,/;' -". "";!~&cla.S-!.g11'!';· M"" s· E ~, .·,· ". Q.~ 2;·1' I!.~ -~""~. ';:;~~ n§"~'li" lI""'<I.~:-"jf 2 I:!!,"' ~!' i.a '!'!. " a~~ '" os' HlH~i H~a~l~I i'!-t~Wim~,!~~m~,mr mH,~jHhr

'-.' ,! ,.,!" co .. ,'F!·-.!'~' Ii-"",,!· , "!!l"'" "~i}'1: ,~,~-~Hi" l-r:'-!'~l'~~i ! "g.!II·-"l~' !!"H:'4.,~H ,~ .~!-, !.~, lh" • ' "'. ' . "!'.' '·"1'-·' ,,', ?iq!l:1' i!:fi !?"I ~ ~ ~~.~:a. § 5' !;~"~ s t ~[-: ~(isil.;"~'''''l~ii";: ~~ ." "'" "'." ~::!.~ If ". i!~3'l:.. Il_~ - E 0 !!.o ""<38--,or:"! jSj!{,'h ,h';"[!i IH:~H!j' ,iH .ri!!1!l-'I'-~'-i p<:'wa"2 §.goHe!i~ i ~ ~.H: - ". <I. 5-ii"ii"~,lI"=is: Kit iI ~~l"-l!!':i~. If. fJ! ·~l"! '_ .'''.~." _·.,.,=',1 'j"'."""-- " -I ".-H"r,! 'I i"-' ''"'I"!'' .• ["',,' 'i,Oii g--'''! • I - ·-•• ·<P~ ~"!lm i:l!.!:H !~ri~n'~ ;~1Iim!f~~i ~ m~HI!iW.

nwn ~f;mm flHruh ~mHiHH! i mimHnH ~ "i~ " 1 'II!:I'~' iii!'.'" 'a!'! '[i ll ' ~l i:i!-~i'~~ i~~ll&'1 1l h,~' ,,;,<l~~~ !f~. &tF:(ti ~!?",~~iiJ.~'~~Js.~ ~ i~b"l~:~~·r'~i~ "'§~ i:I. /!. .s ~o -Mil". ono·,,~ !!. 15. iZ.;li!~-"i~ if !! fI!"'si -' g' .. "'!l j" '!~ .... d.- H l .i!i&' 8. a~~. ~'"'5i:. 28i~-· iI g' ".';- -lB·· .3' ~;;!l' b<.H~ i'iH~!I-r, i!"~P!'d EHjjqd-J ~ l~!;!~ih ~~i '!'.~l~ 1""·-'i , .. L'B ~i·!·'- to'!" . _~H" l' ,i ,·i'-' !. ,'. o--~-'i- . -, --. a, "'-"F , .• ' ail"_!Z:"!lo "i"l~ .;sago if", e:g ~ if . -.g'''~ ~ ~a j &::':J' ~[IS: 11 ;- 5. -§ i"i,1 !<.[ ~."O ~;' ~n ~q' i:i i!'~ ap)~ . ~i g ~~~a~ ~2:1 -!{ .i,h,.! H~;J " ,j'!l,._!,~ nh!"!inni Ji- ,.l~'i"! i,~

N o o 0) .. <0 N 0)

20064926

L..erd< ..... y di'bune proccoclt fQf IlIe rcpoirs &lid '."<>ration in •• ingle ~ ....... or in I series of P"'IrN pay"""" as lh< ",,,,,k i. compl.,<d. UnI ... an .,1U'IIlt1JI i. IIIOISe in wririnl 0< Applicable La", J<qUires ;".oral 10 be p.oid "" .lIth i .. urIIICC p""' ...... , I..eOOc< >hoI1 "'" be ..... i~ co pay Ik>rro_ any ;"'"re$! at .ami",. on . ""h proceeds. F..,. 10. public adj .. , .... or ",her lIIin! part ....... a.inod by Bom>wer..,.I1..." be »OK! ... ," of ,he ilUU,_olK0«C4, &nd IIIoll be Ibo ..,1. oblip' ;"" of ~r. ]ft,," """' ... .,., 0< I'<l'"ir i. lIOI OC<><Knni<lIly (usible Or Ltndo,', """';'r would be I...."...!. Iho il1lurnx:e J>ro«<d> Wli bc :applied 10 ,be owns ><cured by Ihis Sec:urily 1","""'O'lL. _ or not ""'" due, wid! !lie .=. Ifany, pakI to 80"""",. SUch i ...... r...,.p~. Wli be "",lied in Iho order provided for in Section 2.

If 8orro" 'Of iNndons,he Propcny. Ltndor may lile. !>ellOIi ... ond ... ,I.""y available ;"",,",,,,,ellim 1IICI rellIed mII"O ... II Bo,rn_ ""'" 001 ~ wi!hin lO 43y. lO. "",it< from iMIde< 'hoI.he iN"""",, <.,.,.i.r Iw off.red 10 ... ,1 •• Claim. ""'" Lender may ""Bo,i.,. and ... ,1. <I" claim. The 3O~ period will begin when ,be notice i. Ii.",.. In either even!. or ifl..en<:kt OCqui .... 'bc Proponr tlIId<r- S«tion n O'OIberwiSt. Borrower be,oby assi&", 10 I.endoT (a) Bom>wer's riJl>lS '" any jmuranc. proc<lO'Il. in an III1IOU!II no< to .>.e<ed !he amouMs """.'d u"",," IlIe NOIeOf thi' Se<urily Ill$Irummo.. ond (II) any ... 1>." of I\omIwer', .i,b" (o!her dun ,be eighl to .. y refund of uroeomcd praniwm paid by 80"""".) WIder 011 iruurance policies co •• ring d,. Propelly. i!lSOf .... • ""h ri,hts are applicable 1<1 11."'0 ..... ' . nf!he PrlJ9<f\y. lcoil<f may ~oe !he i".",oncc p<O«'l<d •• i,"'" 10 .-epai. 0< ~~ !he Proptny .,. to poy lIT»UIlts unp.id Ul'Idoer tbe 1'01<: 0< ,hi. Securi,y Insllum ......... 1>etho< or '"" ""'" d"".

6. O«u,,""<y . IIonowe. oIlJIl 0C<'\lp)' ... lOblW1 ...... u<el1>o Propeny .. 80_', pri""ipol raidc:noe wilhin 60 days . n., ,1>0 u<CUIioo of !hi. S<.:o.i,y lns/lu,,..,.. oro! shall conti .... 'o occupy ,1>0 ProprI1}''' SomI,,~,·. pri""ipal rfti~ for .. I .... 0 .... ~ .. , f< ... ,lied ... ofocc"V""'Y. unless l.erdcr Olllerwiu " , ... in .... i'ing .... 'hictt """'""" .1IaI1 noc be un~y ...;,hhold. o. unI"", ,,,'rnul<illj: drtulll$Ull<C> .. ilt ... hith . re beyond 8oI'm ..... ·• """m1.

7. rr-..... tlon. Moint. n. _and 1'Y<II«Ilon o/',1Ie 1'roper1y; In. pt<'lio ..... Bo!mwer Wit noc _my, .wn.,. Of~.!be PmpertY. olio .... ,he Propelly 1<1 detmor1lC 0< commit ........ oa!be f'nlpeny. Wh<tlIor or _ Bom>wer is raiding in !be Pmperty. IIolTower obail mainlain t1>o I'ropelly in ord., 1<1 prevertl ,lie f'nlge"y from .... crionuina '" dooll<l$in, in val"" d"" 10 ill condirion. UnI ... ,I is IIcImnil'lC'<J purstl>l\t 10 Seel"", S tllol repair or ,.,..", .. ion i. not o:conomicolty rc.ible. Borrower ... all promp,ly ~air ,be Prnper!y if d1rl1l&"" 10 .void tunoo deteriotal"'" Of 4amage. If i ...... ranee or c:<>!td<mNIioa p~ ... paid in coru>«:Iiorl ... ith ...... i. 1<1. or the """"I of. the Propeny. Borro_ Wli be K:lp"nsible fo< repairin, Of '"''''ing .... Propeny only il I..enokr ..... ~eued pm .... b ",. .""b po....,.... letder may di,burse pm«>ed. for Ibe ~ .. oro! fCI ..... ion in , .ingl. p&)'men, or itt ... ri •• olpmS"'" payr<lO'llU" the WOfk i. <""",I ... ",. If lilt iN""""" o. concI<rnrt.a, ion p'occecI> are _ SlIme""" '0 repai. or ",",ore .... 1'roperTy. Bormwet is '"" ~~<d of 80,.".." ... oblil .. ion f"" lhe ~letion of ,11th repai. o. K:IIO< .. ion.

l"""r o. its ~ may make ruooaabIe ert1ri .. upon >lid inopo<1ions of Ibe """"'lIy. If i, has ru<orI>ble c~uoe. Lertde't may impocl .!Ie inlctior of !he imp~ on IIIe Propeny. !.erode. UIaIf ,iv. IIonowtr noti<:< II tbe rhr .. of o. pno. '0 ouch on interior i"""""ion """,ifyi", SlIob ,.,...,..aJ)k ""usc:.

S. lk><T<)Wor'. Loan """I'Hat.lo,,. 80",,_ shall be in <leraull if. dori", the to"" appIi< .. ion proceo.o. IIonowtr or .. y ponollS or t",nies acoing ...... diftCllon 01 BolTo_ or wi!h Son""" ... _Ied,t or ~ p .. "",,,,ialty f.I",. miolcadinJt. or inot:cur.ot< infOtmalion "" .... e"'""'. to lender (0' failed 10 ",ovid< Latclcr wi,h mal<tiol inf_ion) incontlCClion "';Ih!be~. Material ropteWll"iono ;nc:lu<le. bot arc '"" limi,cd to. rq>n:ocnlllio .. <:<Jt'oIn1linl 80""....,.·. occupancy of lilt Pr<>p<'<1y .. 1Iorro ..... ·• principal ~~.

9 . .......",,100 of I_w', In ...... In lhe J'rot>«1Y and Klgh .. Unw .ltil s«url'r I",''''''''.'' If (I) Borro ...... f.ill to periorm t!le .., ......... and 1,"","","1l coru.inod in ,lti. Securi,y In .. ",t!ICI1I. (II) ,!len: is. 1e,0I proc-!in, !hal milht ';lnifK:Molly affect Lmder', i .. omo in ,be I'topcrty oneIlor ri&hl' under !hi. Securi,y Instl\LmC1l. (..idt I, • ptIl<>:Olinl in ~luupley. p"""'tC, for conoloetnrwion Of foriti tun:. for crtro ......... of . licrt whith may .... in priorily 0"" Ihi. $taJrity Inst""""'" or '0 enforce I ..... o. rquillions). o. (e) 1Io1T""'~' lias abandoned 11>0 f'nlge"y. Ihe<l Londer may t!o >lid pay for ...u.evCT i, n:uoaabl. or opp""", ... 10 pm""" Lender', intercal in !be Property >lid .igltts under !his SeetinI)' ,"""'''''''''. ,,,,,Iud,,,, """ee.in, andfor ~i", !lie val ... of !he Propeny. and .lCruri", lRIiIo. repalri", the Property. Le>.f .. ', """OM WI inc:lu<le. bul arc not limiled 10: (.) p>},i", .. y lUms oec\IIaI by I lia! ... hith lias prionlY 0' " !hi. Sec\lrilY InSlrumenl; (b) apptItina in "",u,,; and It) payi"!; re>$OlUble .. torney,· f..:$ 1<1 PfOle<:' ill in ...... in "'" Propeny and/or fi", .. under this Seeurily In«rumern . i""lodillJ ,IS ""'1 ...... 1 po$i,ioo in a Nnluup"'y

f .... JI05 1111 (pdp 6 of 12 P<'I'"

"" E;! c ___ 0 ~. = , :;;;....: ;:

- i :: 1: C§'f; ::::1 ~J 011 1

I , !

I ! ~

• ~ " ~ [

1(11 !I II~rl ."il I ~ill~il'il.a](!~~t l · ~I ,- ilill i~ i-~:i~ ~E~If.iiO'~~Ii·i~ ;. !!:;'~ ~~li~i§'if~! [ ~a~sli"'[i~ ? i(~:::;[i!· -::_~!!··~, ~J i ~ > ~j> lo~-I·!~~~~J~I~l -~j ' iiq~oi:::; ~ ~ I~~ ~~J~~ir·~~~i.ii ~ g ~~:! ~ :1 ~i{~ i' ~ ~iai i!~ ~i~i ~ i ! 'SI 8'l:~t~ i~! ~ ~~l ;--i·i:; ~· I ~ .~~~ ~ ll ~ ll~1 1 I'",i !lfll!li~ . II . I~R·!lil.lrij~'I"~:·~ il·. ~ _ o~-il a " ~"e-"'- a.ta"'!!!lplig~ g ~ q. !I!:ii 3: ~ ;r - ;' li' i ~ ~~E~~li 1:ll)! !li.!III ll·111.! I~JI~I~:ill!i l ·liJI I ·~~:l[;~I.: !"'<"l "i]i~'i '·!1i'~H!,~!II~~' "[~ ~".' l' ,!~,,_iiH~ !!I '~i ·l l.i!1 l'I'I'il(! I I!lll!li~ ! III;'I~ J!!ltll~ i ~ ~ ~~ ! ~ ~!i~p, r ~iJ E~rh~ ~ ~~.!~ii~~i~l~ !~ . :~f ~ (11- ~ !f}J qd[iChl·hJ h~h'l;"'~ll~rh[~".1' f rqi ~.,~h"J! h al-" " ·3f" 'I"'" !-l'hli.!r "!'! ~H if'··· .. '···

~H!! iil ~~Hn mtfUj!iUil1IIiH1H:im ~~i!iHI~t - . ,OJ - a .I-.'~ ~-! ' i i ~'I'· - I'- ' [ ·l··j·I' ., ."-I ' ·'ji !!:i~i i l ~;~;jl ~il~~i~t li !~i! !~~i:fl-i~ : l:ll~ j!I~ ~ I~;11 = ' t~P~l:I ~ -:::~ . !:"'l p~h·'n~>lI~~"',,~ ! ... , - .. il'!i;;~e; ~S:!I"~H:~IZli" .~;,;. [ lj <l~~.! ~ " ~"~"'>·I~ · ~Fh~I,~j!! " ,. -i-·j~~'~~ ' ii' !~Ia~ · ;~ ~~,~r i D 5~" z z~ ~~~af!~~ ~ F Ij~ an i fl - ~-iil~

~iiP f! ii ~!i· d·] l~J~~ !iii~ ;t~ ~~I~d Itt;!!: ~1~·~!~i:~6 !"i, ~ ~ ~1 lBi! H'i :l ~·'!~ ~~~ih[f~· r;i1i·~:r~8~ .. s- ijl~~ ~_e:i l i,ii ri !t;.i ~!1iI~!1 li~il!I!lt ~ !!lllll!11 i! Ii :!:~ "K ::.i-! a:: "it§ f ~ ii! ~1I1t f i"'",a ;!.:Llt ~ u· !lPj( ~~ 2"~ o/!g. ~:r .F. B ~ •• , ,'~;- ,. ~. (j' ••• ".!,,;!.,j .. i i' 1 -'

.. 3_ ~ _~~~ ~g _ n ~ ~ ~~-~~ ~a _ j~s _ _. 2_ a~ ~ i Ei i! r ~1 ~ 1 18~ I !1~~: ~ ~a!~~~8~wB~ ~ ~j H~ ~ rill

N o o 0> .. '" N 0>

200 6 4 926

11 ...... ignm ... t or M iS<elI ......... Pn><ftd.: . ·orfrilu .... III! M;"",Il0ne0us f'roceal. ~ hereby ... ia ..... 10 and "'ill be paid tQ lcrdtr.

II I!>e I'topeny is d~ • ...,., Misoell ......... 1'focmI. Wli be applied 10 ~to< .. io" Of rrvair "I 'he I'ropeny. if the re".,.,OIio<\ "'" rq>. i, i. =nomiully lea>iblt and l.oro!er', ....,.,ri'1 is not \oum<d. DU';'I loch "P.i, ond ~"'iot> p<riod. L=ol<t ""'111'>0.-.,1>0 <if!" to I><>Jml rompklr<l to ume,"SOlil.llIt1;.m. pfiWided ,""...,b iMP<CIiml ..... 1 be undenaken p~ny. I..m;k, IlIlIY I>'Y lor lhe~" ..... ml<><al;on in • • ;",10 disbur$ctnoN '" ilI ... riesofpl'Ol .... pay""'''1S alhe work i, oompl .. od. Unl ... an .,,.......,.,. is made in wrl,jn, or Applie.oble L.a. ... requl ... ;"_10 be paid onllllCh Miscdlaroe<l\li I'roo:eed •• LeOOer slall r»1 be "","uired 10 poy 8o""_"'y inte...., or urni",. un such Mi.ml .......... 1'rtI«<:ds. If lhe reslomion or repoi, i. "'" e<.'o'.)micIUy Imiblt or ~', IeCUlity ..ould be 1 .. 1CIlOd. 11K: M ioccllaneous f'roc:ecd. shall be applied 10 lhe sumo HICUft'I by ,hi. Ser;urity ,"'", .. ,,.,... wbetlIer or notlhcndlle. "j,h the •• ceo., ilany. pUI 10 Bonower. S\do M;"",IIaneou. ProcmI.lha!1 be applied in llItorner pf'(Iyidcll for in Soction 2.

In ,he own! of • IOU! lakin,. destruction. or 10$0 in val ... ol'he Propeny. Iht Mi_lI_ I'ma!tds ...wI bo .ppliell '0 "'" lUrns secured It)' lhi. Secu,ily I",""rnent. wbolho, or"", ""'" due. wilh thee~. if any. ~d'o 80""""".

In "'" e\lt'lll of I pu1i .. Iwna ..... lf1It1ion. or loss in v .... 01,11< Prop<ny in which ,II< bi, mar\eI v .... of lhe Propeny IlI1JntO:Iimly bef"", IlIe pu1i .. lUi", ..... 'f1It1ion. or 10M in VllI ... is cquallO 0' ""Ole' than "'" "'10\18( of 'h. "'nt. "",un:d by 'hi. Securily lnslrunt ... " ilflll>OOli,"'ly befo .. ,be puti" ,okin,. desl"""ion. or los. in ...... unleu IIornIwcr """ Lmde, <HlicfwiK aK"'" In "",i,lnl. "'" sums .. ",\fed by !hi, Socuri'y Inslrumtnt sh .. 1 be ttduml It)' ,he 111 ....... or "'" Miscellaneous I'rotecdo mul.iplied by the folio"';", r"<lion: (., [he ".".1 """"nt of the ....". otCIIled imm<diarely before <he pu1i. 1 IUinl. dntNCIion. 0' loss in v ..... d;.Oded by (b) "'" lai, mar\el. v ..... ol ille Pmpaty immediately belore!he pu1i .. ",ki", ..... 'I\l0l100. '" lOIS 'n v ..... Any b""",e $h .. 1 be ~d [0 Bonn..",-.

In III< """'" 01. pu1ill lUi",. deslf1lt1ion • .,.-10>, in v .... of the Properly in wIIltlt [he f.i, mar\el. vllue 01 tho Property ilr.nalillely belon "'" pu1ill laI<i",. dnttuClion. Of Iosa In VllIuc i. leu tIwt <he II110UJII of 1!It 01",,, soru,ed ;-...ria.oly be""" the pu1ia!l:Wnl. IlosotuClion. '" loS> in vol ..... deu D<lrrower and Lmdo, OIhe .... ise .&,..,., In writinl. lhe Mi",ellltlt'OUll Ptoctcds!.hall be applied 10 <he.WIIII secural by !his Securi.y 1"",,,,,,,"","'-Ol' "'" the ourns ... lhcnduo.

If <he PRljICfTy is _ by 8oml~ .. r. or Jf • • n., t'01kc by Lender 10 80"""", tlllt lheOppo.inl Pmy (os drli!'Jlll! in <he nell "",,,,,u) offet)lo lI'Ilke an.ward to settle. <llim ror d ...... g ... Bo""..",- f, ililo fospond 10 U,..,.. wilhin 30 4l)'S Iftcr the date the Mlitt is I;v", l.enitr i. oulll<>ti~ to coli"" and awty lhe Mi",.I1""""", Proceed. eithe, lu .... IOflllion or "",if of lhe Propeny or 10 <he wms secured by tlti. Sccurily ["''''''''''''' ......... lI<r '" "'" 'h<n Ihle. "Opp<I<i". Porty" me>n< ,II< 'bird I""Y "' .. 0 ...... 90""""", Mi",.II_" Ptocu ..... , shall \lO In ""fallil if any ","ion Of p...,.,.,..rinC. whl:!tIor <ivil o,,,,,iminal. i, beCun ,,,,,I. in

!.ende,', judgmem. could...wl in lorlcilureol,b< Proptny ",,,,be, nwerial imp.itm<nt 01 Lende,', interest in <he rmp.ny or ,Igl><. lU'odet this Scc\lrily 1""''''''''.... 80.........,. can cu'" ...,,, • tkf.,tll ancI. if ..... It ... ion Iw occurred. rei"" ... IS pmvidod in s.c,ion 19. byo.ous'''' tbt ""ion or proceotli", 10 be dismiHed wi,h. ",Ii". .har. in lende,', jool,,,...,.. [>'<OCtodes fmld,.," of lilt l'topetIy Of OIlier "",,~,;;>\ impai"""'" of Lcn<l<r', inl...,,1 In I~C I"ropony or 'ight> ._ Ihi, Scc\lri\y hUI"'mon<. 'Tho procero. 01 any 1'W#d o,.I.im lor dar",,", lhol .... ",ribuo.ble to <he impai"""'" 01 U:nde,'. inl ..... in "'" Pmpony ~ ~y ... i&!'JIlI! and shall be p.it1 '0 I.-<trd<t.

All MiscelianeolJS Pr-ocee<Is lil.I .... "'" applied 10 reslO'OIion or repai, of the Propcny !.hall be applied in IIIe ",<let pnlvillod for in S«tionl.

U. Burro .. ' .. Not Rei.....!; I'o,bea"'n« l.Iy UnrIr< Not. Wl lver. F->.\ension oflb< Ii"", fo' pryltlCnl '" modifi<"ion of ..,.",iwion ollh< JUJ1>IIlONred by dli. Security In"rume-nt. &12flI<d by under 10 Dom>....,. '" "'y s~ in IrutteSl 01 8onowcr stull not ope .... to rel<ooe IlIe liabilily of 8onoweto, any S!Jc:cesso .. in imcrw of 1IornI .. -e,. t.er.Ier shall flO! be required 10 ~e pn,,, .. ,,llng. "ai .... any Suowrwr in In'"'"" of Bono"'" 0' 10 refit .. 10 e.,ontI Ii"" f'" payment or otherwise modify II1IOni"lion of lhe lWnS secured by thi. Sccuriry Insl""""", by reO$On of any dtrnantI """" by die oriai"", Borro ..... or lIfIy Succesoo .. in In",,,,,, of 80""....,.. Any fotboarancc by I~r in eu,d.in! any righ\ 0' rer!'Jlll!y '""Iudinl. ",ithoul limilOllon. L<:nckt', 1IXepIan<e of pay"""" f""" \hi'" penoru ..... it .... or Sut<:e> ..... ;n In' ...,,1 of 80""""", '" in ..",..,nu kss tIwt ,he IfI1OIIn[ thm due. sball "'" be . ..... i.", of 0, ",""ludO the e>ercise of any ript 0, remody.

200 64926

13. Joi nt ond 50>',,",1 U .bl lily; C .... ~~; S...".,...,... and AsJlin. Bound. 1Iorro",~ tQ\-enan(. and "8rees tl'IIII 8<>rro ...... ·, obli,uio", and liability 5IIaI1 be J<>inl ond "', ....... However, any Borro ...... who «Higns <hi. Se<urily J""""""", bu. does ...,. """",. tile 14 .... (a '00.""",,"): (0) i. oNipn, Ibi, Sc<utily I .. ,,,,,,,,,,,, only '" mo<1goge, ,ran< ond OO"vq tho """'1110>'" inltrt:Sl in ,he I't'I>prn)' WIdtt lhe Imr>S of llIi, !)<C\l"'Y Inll"""""': (D) .. "" personally 00111"'«11<> ~y ,1>0 >UJJ\S ><01/0<1 Dy IlIIt SCICII",} I"..",mem: ana (e) . ,rees th .. L..mdn ond ""yother 8otm_ ~ ",tee 10 O>.lme1. moc!ify. forbear Of ..... l<e ""Y O«<>mmod .. io", wi,h ",,0'" .0 !be t...,.. of .hi. Sealrily 1!U,fUI\1OI\! <>r "'" N,"c without 111< •• Ni, .... ·• <OnSt1'JI.

Subjocl ' 0 ,he provi,ions of Settion 18, any Suotnsor in In,ereol of Bonower who ...... ",.. Bof1'O"":f', ""Iil.ion! u.-lbi, Stewi'} 1",,_ in .... riri"'. and is """to>cd by Lender, slWl obIlin all of IIorrower', ri&hlS and beno/", .. under Ihi. Sc<:u,j,y IIU''''''''''''. Borrt>wt1 Jball "'" be rd • ....J from IIorrower', oblip'ions ...., liabili,y WIder thi' So:urily I"""""",,, \IIII .... l.end .. Iglft> to.""" releaso in wri,i",. The coven." .. and ll!~mem. of thi. Se<\lrily J1'I>tnuntnl stull bind ( .. """ .. provMle<l in Section 20) ana bentfl,.he ~11 ond :wi,,,, of Lender.

l~. Lolln Charwro. I.mdcr may charge Borra_ r .... f<>t .. ",ices po:rfOfJ\'ll:d in COJ\lleClion with 9orrower', delault, IOf the pwpose ofprot«',nl ~'. in'ereo' in the I'rop<I1Y and riih" uncIt, ,hi. ScaJ'ity 1""""""111, i""hoding, bill Mllimi,ed to, .tlo""'Y" f..", propel1y ,,,..,...ion and .. Ina!ion f"""_ In ""ud '0 ... y OIher fees, (he absence of .'pm' l\!(OO';'y in thi' Security IRSlrun'ItIIt to ct."". , 'P""ir", I .. to IIo<rowtT >hall MI be co .... ruaI :II • prohibition on the e/w"", 01 wch l<e, Lend<:T may MI </w,e f .... th>t ~ e~p""ly prohilJi'ed by ,hi, Security I ... ,ru"""" Or by Applinble La .....

If the !.om iI subj"'t '0' Ilw whidl ......... i ........ lomchorp. and lIw 10'" i. ftrWly inletpreted.., ,1Ia! the i",,,,,,,, 0' o,lIor loan char,es collfCIed or '0 be collected in ronnttfion ... i,h tile Lo»J> e.\<ef<l tho pemUt1ed li.mts, ,!"len: (.) any stdt 10lfl charI" Ullil be reduced by tbt .......... ".....uy '0 reduce ,lIeellor". to tile pennitled limit: """ (b) ,-"y ..... already coil""",, r""" BoNQwer which .. <:«ded pcntti!red limits"';l1 be rdll..s.d '0 Bono..... . l<rodef!1ll)' <_ to maI<. !hi. ",fuJ>:j by rod"";IIJ ,he princ;JW owed w'oIler ,he No« or by "..~i'" I direct I"'Y"""" '0 BoNQ ...... If . refuJ>:j reduces principal, ''''' "",,,,,,ion"';l1 be , .... ed a, I pmial pr<:p>yment ,..;,110.. ..y p<q>aym<n' """'I" (whether Of "'" • pn:paymen cl'wBe ;. provided fo, unde, ,he NOlO). BaNQ\\ott·. "::''''pt'''''''' of .. y wch refund modo by difff' pay"""" to Borro"", will oanl,il"",' ..... i_ of .. y rigll! of l<lion BorroVoa milM "' ... orisin, out of.1.d1 <W<"rdIat,."

IS. Notlca. All MliC<:l &i'''' by Borrowt, Of lerder in ronnc:<:Iion witlt !hI. Security .. " lru ...... '!l"OH1 be in ,..,;tina. ""y "",ice to Don"...., in conno:o;:1ioo "';Ih thil Securi(y lro\rumrol!blll bed....-...! to hove botn ,i .... to Borro_ ... hen "",iled by Hm .1 ... mail o, ... 1Ien ""lIIally drli,·ered 10 Borrower'. Mlice odIIrclI if """ by odie ......... NOla to .... y one 8orro\\ott ohall """"ir.", "",a.o oil 5oNQw<r$ unless Apfllicllble 1 .. ", ~.pre<"Y "'l";"'" ",,,",,,",,,_ Tho nntiM >dol ..... _"""I he ,be Prope"y Add""" unI<Ss 5o"" .. "r bas dr:!;&tW"" I ",""lilUte not"e odIIr ... by Mlice to L.mda. Bonower shall p<Ompll~ n<>I;fy L.mda of 90"""",'. <han,. of ;odd""". If L<nder """if"" I pro<:ed= f.". "'P""illJ Bor~·, clI"'gc of oddl"Q>. then Bonower ,hall only "'PO" I Cb.anJt of add, ... "'rougllllw >p«if .... proeukl",. There may be only ont dr:Jignaled nookc -"''''''' urder Ihi. s..::urily ' mlrwntnt .. any.".. ,imo:. Any "",ice to Ler.Iet ohall be ,iwn by drli.oring il or by "..ilillJ il by fim 01 ... "..,1 .0 terokJ·, addrel> $!ated ""'cin unlc .. L.tnd ... bas dOli,,,,,,,,, another add .... by 1'IOli« 10 801f<)Wef. Any "",ice in c:onnecrion ".'!h this SecuriIY In""""""1 oIWl not be dotmod 10 "''0 b<oon ,i...., 10 I"""'" until ""rually r=i>'ed by L..tnII<t. If any "",ice r<quiled by 'hi' Stcurity Immll"",,, iI 0110 "",,uired W"Idt, Aw1icable Law. tile Appliclble 1..> ... requi ......... I.,.;1I ..,ilfy lite DOrraponding requi=nen( und ... tlti. Securi.y lnolnunrnl.

16, (".., .... nlnK La,,·; ...... · ... abitl'yi Itul .. of COI1Otrucllon. Thil Secu,ilY I""rutroenl .hoIl be goVi'fT('d by r«lorllla ... and 'lie 1 .... of.hejuriodic'ion in whictl 'he Prope"y iI l<lC.llled. All rigll .. OIl(! obIi, .. ions oonlained in '~i. Securily I"""""""' .... ,ubjecl to ""y ~i""""",, ond limil.lions of Applicable Low. Apfllitllble La ... might: .~plichJy or i""licitly allow"'" pMlio:s to ., ..... by COOltno<, 0' i. miglll be .item. bul.""h ,ilonce >hall not be COfIIlrued ... pr<>llibir"", lBai"" """"""" by «>Ill"",!. 1n.1Ie event tfIat any prov,';(IfI or <lillie of (hi. Securily 1."11\111""', Of .he N"" ""In"", ... itlt Ajlplicable Law, wtII conni" r.ru.tl nor .rfeel "'''''' provilklns gf .hi. Socurily Insl,""""" or rile Not~ which can be &i'''' .rr ... withoul IIIe confl;"illJ prO>ilion.

A. wed in lhi. Secutity '''''rumom: (I ) wollb 01 ,he malClllin< Kende, ohall mean and i""lt.de cort"t>p<>rding ....... """do or,.",-,l< of the fornini"" een<In; (b) WI>rIB in 11M: .in~11r ohall mo:an arod i.dt.de ,lie plural and ,ice ven.a: IfId (oJ !he word "may' ,i'''' solcdisctelion wilhoul any ""'i,arion 10 toke 0It)'

"'ion. 17. DorT<»o..-'. Copy. Bo""""', "",II be ,i...., ont copy of ,he NOIe and of thi. Security I""""""", .

~., ... " ,,,o.,, LWTRlIloI£M" f onoJOIJ 1101 M.9ofllf>dl<1)

200 64926

18. T .... ""r.r of tho l'roptrt~ or . 1I ... <lkl. II"' .... ' In 1Iorro~ '« ..... ulCd in mi. S<ctiQn 18. ·[mcre., in ' be "'openy . moans ..,y "pi or benefIcial in,O<eS. in lhe Propm),> inc:llldin,. bin D01limi'«I10. _ benoficial inl~,a .. ' ..... r.md In I bood for cIccd. """tract (or d<\<d, ; ... ull".,... >lI .. """"OCI ..... escrow ttrtemerll. the ;.Im. 01 whioh i. !he ,rooste, of ,itle by Borro .... ' 01 • 1\mJ .. d ... to • pun:ha>tt.

If all or"'y pan olrlle Propmy or."y Inltn:lr in !he 1'l\>pOrty" $(lId 01 '!U$leJTC<l (or "110"""",.,, "'" • ,...un) penon and • be .... fi.ioJ i.-.,<>e In Bofro_ i> oold or ' ....... rerrod) ""i.!Iou< t.er.k;', ""ior wri".., """""". Lender may r.qui .. inlll'ol!di.,c p.oym:rn in tlJlI of all ,u:ns ~ by Illi. StctIri,y 1"",ummI. !!O~. Ihi . oplion ihall IIOl be =ioed by l.eni3cf if sucIo .. =~ i, pfOhibited by ,o\pplkobJe Law.

If l~' e>;<1ti ... ,hi, "l'lion. t.endn shall l ive _ DOIke of occeltnlion. The "",icubal] p«>vido • period of "e" 1eo,Ihan 30 dlY. (rom tho dale !he OOlite is I i."" in a«:ord""", with s.c.iofI U wimin which Bo""",~, ...... ' pay >II >UII>I ........ r«! by lIli, $a:urity r!\$lrum<nl. If ~ rail" o pay 01 ..... . .. " .... prior to .ho • • p;~ion of !hi> pori"". lmder may i._1I\Y _ios pmniu<d by ,hi. Sc<:urily h"lnm"'" wMoLd fun"", rot;u or o!<:nwI(I on Borro .... r.

19. I\or...".tr'. Rlihl lO ReI" , " lc Arter "''''''I .... 'Ion. If 8IJ.rro...:. meeo: . C<T1';n cond;'ium. B<>rnI .... , shall ha~!he ,i,hl 10 ha •• enf~", of thi. Securily l""rwnenI discon!i....ed a! " 'Y Ii",. prior '0 the earl;'" o f: taj r.~ d2Y' before oal~ or the Prop<-ny pu .. ""'" 10 ""1 po...:. of oalt _" •• ,,,,01 in this s.a.,;,y I,..,rument; (b) ""'h ",I\<:, period .. Applkable Law mi,h! speoify for.he I.rmilWionof8om>,....,.·, rilhlla rei .. 11'.; or (~) "'1)' of • jud' ..... /II ".IOI"<i", ,hi, Securi,y 10Sltu"' .... ' . Thooe ooroIi,\ons OK till, Borrower: (a) ~Y ' l.en:Ic, all 'ums which ,ben wouM be d ... urdc, ,hi. Secwi'y In""""",,, ond the NO!< .. if"" """,I ... ,io:< had occurml: (b) ou,.,. any dcfouil of ..,y olber ............ or log ............. ; (c) pay. all •• pemes inoumd in enf"",i", thi~ Se.;uri.y lnotrumoru. ;nc1ooinl. '""I "'" limi,ee1,a. reasonable a"om<y" leel. proptI"1y ;nsp<cI;"n ond vll",'ioD ftes. ond ",lin lees ;ncurml for the pIlfPO$C of prolecl;", Lmdor ·. illlOfaI in lile Pmpmy ond rip,ts order thi, Securi,y 111110""'''', and (dj 10k"' ...... ac!1on 1$ Lend., .... y , .. ,o~ly r«lui .. 10 _ .... thai J..end<,r', in,e"", ift ,he I'ropeny IIId riJh .. IlI"Idor Ibi, Se<-urilJ Ins' rum.,,,. and 8orm ... ,·, obli, .. ion '0 I"Y the sums ............ by thi. Security ""'tN"""". shlll ,,,;'IIin ... """hantcd. Lmdor may '"'lui", Iho< 8orTo"~ I"'y 't>tlI .. i"' .. , ........ wms IIId ""'pens<S in <me Or mote of tho rollowinl fonns. u .. 1.."ee1 by L.enQn, (.) <O$h, (b) ""'..,. orde<: (~) o;cnir.ee1 check. Nnl: check. , ...... rt"I" •• dl/:ck or ol$h.".·, """"t. p",vidod II1Y su<h ch«~ i. d .. "", upon an ift$!;lIdi<rn ~ r!epooi" m in"' ..... by a fede,al ","'"Y. in>!ru""""alilJ or .... i,y: or (d) Eloetronio Fund. T.-fa. Upon "'in .............. by Bo ........ r. tIIi. Securi,y I",,,,,,,,.,u ond obllplions ..... red btrdly Ihall ,..",.in fully .lIoeti"" 1$ if no >oc<1 .... 'ian had occumd. Ho ..... ~r. ,hi. ri,1It '0 reill5l". ihall MI opply in the""'" of-=1 .... ;.,o onder s.c,;"n 18

20. Sole ..r No .. : C","nll< of w..n Stn"kft"; Nutl~orGrie.·._. Tho N",~o, a paniall .. erm in "'" 1'1",. (lOiettler WIth 'bi, 5<>cwuy I"""""""') can he ..,ld !lOt or mo .. ''''''' Wl,IIOuI plior ""'ice '0 Bo"""~r. A sal. miJh. ,."ut, in a chan&" in the .... i1y (known as "'" ·l.om Servioer°) lhat qrl)""" PmOOic Payme",. d ... under 11>0 1'1",. and this Securi,y 11I>1~ ond perf""'" ",her molliil" loan lIOfVitins oblip,ioru under ,ho Nore. ,hi, Securi'y Irwrum<nO. ond Applicabl. Low. Tho~aI", rniJl>< be on" or moreoil2nS" of "'" l.mn Servit .. lWda!ee1 10 a sale of ,be Note. II ,be .. i •• chan;le of tbe l.om Servicor. Borro .... r will be , iven ... ritlen noli"., of ,he change which ""II Slalethe name and add ..... of the ...... Loan Servioer. ,be address.o ""'ictr p.oY"""'" 5IIouid be made and any ,IIhe:r infOflNlion RESPA .-.qui,." in """"""ion with . noliceof lransfa of servicinl. If tho NO!< i • ..,ld and Jber~.ftef ,be ~ i ... rviced by I Lo ... Sorvicer ",tie, llran ,lie purthl$er of ,he N",e. ,he .-n, agt" 10 ..... rvitinl obliplium to IIorrower will n-rnain "';,h ,ho LoaD Soorvioer or be """Ierred to a """""''''' Loan So",i ... , ond are nor ..... lInal by ,be N",,, pOrt ........ ""I ... OIt1e""''' pro.ided by , .... N",e PIIrthaser

Nei,lIer Bo"""", not Lender "'"Y <omrn<nO". join. or be joinc<l ' " any jooliciall<!lon (1$ ollller an indi.idual Iilil"'" or tho nlOII'Ibet of • 010lS) ,ha' on"'" from thr other jUrly'. lC'ions putS""'" '" ,his Securi'f In .. rumen! o. !I' a! olt<za ,Iw tho oth<r pany h .. brn<t.:<l ""y p...,..i,;"n of. '" ""y d ... y 0",""" by .eunn nf. ,hi. s..:uti,y 111>'"""",,,. "",il .""h Borrower or Lender h .. "",irred ,be ",her pmy (wi.h.uob nOli"" gi""" in «<mpli""", with ,be rtq\I, ......... of Ste,ian IJ) 01 weh aile"" brach and affOrded "'" ",he, patly hemo. reo"""""I,, period . n.r the gi.;n, of such "",ice to ,ake rolR'C1i~ ... ion. Ir Applicable Law "",.ides I lime perilld "t1ich ..... ,' elilple before <enlin ac110n can be .. ken. INI ,ime perilld will be rk<:m<d '0 be ~bl. for putpO«I 01 this parq:r>ph. Tho notice of """,I''''ion ond opponunily 10 cu .. , i • ." '0 Borrower pIlBt»nC ,0 Sec1ion n ond .ho "",ice of """,I.mion i iVCll .0 80"" ..... punuanI '" Sec<iorI 18 5IIali be doemecIlO lOIi.fy ,be "",ice lnd opponunilJ 10 ,He rome,i .. OOI;on ","vi,ium of thi, Settion W .

, ~._ lOQlI . 111 /po" 10 of 11_,,1

200649 26

11. 1I .... rdOO$ Subilta_. A,"oc:d In this Seaion 21: (a) "Haurdous Subill"""'" are d»>e •• I»u,nc"" <lefln«! os ,",xi< or bwrdou! sub$tance:s. poIlutan1., Ot ""', .. by Env;ronm.'1Il1 La"' ..... 111< foU"",;", .<lbmI0;"": iasolint. koroseno, ",her ~illrfllal>l. QI' loxic "o"oIOllll! prod ... ,,,, IOo.ic """"'idol ..... hefbicidef. volatHe soI.ont., matoriol. """,.in;nl osbesI ... or formaldehyde, and ""'iOXlive """t,ial.; (b) "Envi",runent.il Law' meaN fcdonl 1lW$ and I ..... of ,be juri$dicrion ~. !be I'toper!y i, ,,,,, .. ed th>I .. )"'. ID heallh. ",r .. y Or ..,.i,on", • • ,," prot,.""",; (e) "lll .. i""""",,,aI O ..... up· j""lude> any mpooue ""'ion. _ill O<1ioo, or .. mo.aI 1IC1;"" ... defined in Environment .. Law; ..... (d) 0/\ "Environmonlal Con;Ii,i",,' moan • • OO<"<Iil;"" lhil un ..... Ie. corurilllntlo , or O<hetwile t",..,.. III En.;""""",,," CltamJp .

lJom,w,,, ,hall"", C .. '" or permit !lit praenc<:. """, di.posaI, ."' .. S., or m .... of 1I\y tlauzdOoll' s..""...,.,., ur ,h",.,.., 10 "', .... any Haunloul SUbstances, on Or in ,hoo !'rope"')' . 1Iorro .... ' shall "'" do, not

o.Uow 11'1)I00I' el .. '" do. anythin, an""'inWIbe PIOp<ny (a) 'hOI i, in ,.,,"'''''' of any Elw;ronmemal Low. (b) which e","''' an Envi""""""'>l Con;Ii'ioo, '" (t) whictl. doe to Ibe presence. U$t, or ~tsleOf. Hu:ar6ou$ Subsl>roce. =.tes • condition ..... ool •• ""ly &Ifta:l Ihe valu. of tho Propeny, TIK: prct<di", two senlences shall IlOl OWly 10 the presero:e ...... Of , tOr' g. OIl tho Propeny ofwnall quantil~of H...anIou1 SUW""",," "' ..

.... """,rally """,,,,ized 10 be """ropri". 10 normal ..,.jdel11ial .... 0IIIl to mainlenance of tho I'ropeIty (i""ludin,.IM IlOl limiled 10. h;0zar60U$'uWaDCeS in <;OMurrItr protium).

8on'o .... , shall promplly ,i'. Lende, WIi<ten IIOIin: of (.) any inVCSIiplion. tl.;m. demand. 1'\O$IIil Of

(llilef ""tion by lIlY i<I'.rnmt1OI or regull!O<Y .. ...,y '" pM .... I*'Y invol.ing the Propeny 0IIIl any U.,..ardooIl. Subst....,. Of E,,,ironm.n,,.1 la ... of which 1\orTo~ Iw actual bIowIedg •• (b) .. y Erwi""""""ul Condition. i""ludin, buI .." limited 10. ""y spillinl. looking. dl",h.'l<. rei.,... o. ,h."", of rei .... of any Hourdous Substonc:e. oud (el any coo<iilion .... <COI by ,ho presonc<. UK 0' rei ..... of • HOl'Mdous Subo'O/ICC which oolv"",",y . ffta:l tho v:tILlO of"'" Propony. IfBorro,,~.I<ams. 0';' notified by any Eovemrrrn,aI 0, '.I ullllOr)' aulhori,y. Of any pM .... pUt)'. (/I .. any rerMVal 0' ",her remeo.!i .. ioo OfollY H_dou. SubstarR ' ««.1inl ,ho Propc:"y i. ~. Borro~ shall promp,ly ,.u IIlI neceswy mnedial "",iona in ~ wi'h Environmenlal Law. Noth;nl herein 5llallere ... any obll'''i'''' Oft Lender fo, an En.;I'OfIJIItl1101 Oeanup.

NON.UN 'H;>IlM COv""'''~"TS. Borrower and Lender funh<r covenant oud ague .. folio .... : ll. ""-'''on; lI.elDtdits. Ltndcr shall gl~ ",,11.., to 1Iom>" ... prior 10 artd .... 11Qft fono"-Ing

11<>"""' ... '. _ " 01 any co . ..... n, ...... V"""<t>' In 'hb s..:urily Imlrum.nl (bu' not prior 10 . oxtl .... lIon .. nd ... SKII.," II un' ... Applicable la'" provld .. otloe<wiso). Th. notl.., . h. 11 "pt<1fy: (I) II .. de''''' ; Ibl til< .<,1000 ..... 01 ..... ' 0 ....... ,he dtf.ul'; (e) I d al •• no, "'" ,lIan JO tIa)·, fnom lhe""I.,ho: "",let is ~ .... '0 Ilorrower. by .. hleh 'M d.flull "'u" be ""~; a"" (d) IU' f.nun: '0 <ure ,be dtfoull "" Or bofon:.be da,~ .pt<1nN In Ih<notlet may .... ul' In aoxtl .... llon otlho: . g .... -.. ..... by Ihls SK_rily l""rum ... , aad sal. 01 'M Property. Tbe ..00 .... ball furth ... InfOl'1ll 1Iom> ..... of 1""- rlgM 10 rtl""II' afl ••• cnl ..... '1ool and ,he right ' 0 bring • .... ,rt Kllon 10 I$on1 lho: ""n_u' ..... ofo d<1'aull (H' ""y O,~ tSof, .... of 110<1'0"'''' '0 """,,,",,ion a"" .. I •. If t""- d.foull b not ouffll on or ber ..... ,h . ... , • • p«iflod in ,ho: noti.." Unde, . , iu oJ>lIool m.y mjul ... Immedi., . "")· .... n' io full 0' a ll 1m'" ... u ..... by ,hi. s..:urily I""'rum ... ' " 'lIhou' funber demand and may In"o~e IM iX',,'er of "Ie . nd a .. y o,b ... ~I .. pemlilial by Appllcoblo ... ... L<"d ... , h. 1l II< .nUUO<! , ,, <0110<1 . n .. po ..... I ...... ~ In .... ".' ''IIlh. ren>ed ... p«>'ld'" In thb Se<;,1ool 22. Inrludlng. "'" not 11m], ... ' 0. <a>O",,~ . 11 ....... y.· r ..... nd "",U ofllll<

"'1_. If Lmdtt In,·o k ... h. po"' ... of" I., I.end« .honuoro' .......... Tnt" ... ," uoro' •• ",rill", notl..,

of ,ho:<><'<U, ...... of on ...... of dtf. ul, " nd of Ltnd« ........ 1ooI ' OCl .... the Pro""rtyl .. he""ld. T"", ... .... n ta .... Ihit ""'I« '0 he ruordalln ... h """.'y In ... ·hlth . " y ..... ofille......,....y 10 ..... ,ed. I ........ Or or .... l .. ~h.1I ",all copl .. or"'<""'i ..... p.-oibtd by Appil<ablo"'" 10 8orro>oer I nd 101M o,hor persons pns<ribecl I>y A",lkal>l< I ...... Trusl.., ,"'JI II~ public Dot!..,of .. I.I .. lhe pone ... and In ,h. mann., p""",ribed hf Appl leoohle I ..... M'tt 1M lim. «qui ..... by Appllt'llble Low, or.,.., .. , wI.h",,! d. "",nd on il<>n'm>er •• hon 0<11 lho: Proporty 81 public . udion '0 ,ho: hlghes. bldd ... . ,1ho: ,1m. I nd p''''' ond under lhe , ....... dalRnal«l In 11 .. nollet: of .. Ie In 0 ... .... ~ plraI •• nd In o.,y order Trus .... deI • ...,i"",. T .... I.., moy p""'po". ... I.or.1I or a"y pa~ oflho: Property by publ le . ...... ......, ... 1 o"he II",. . nd pia« 01' any """""",If J<btdukd •• Ie. l..eodrr (II' 11$ d<$il ..... moy PUI'I'Iut .. ,1It Proptrly .'"ny ... 1 • .

r I • I

200 64926

Tnut .. , holl dol;"or to 1M l"',tI>.- ·r ..... ' .. ' • ....". "",voyl", 11>< \"ropert)' with"", ony .., .... an' or .... monty, u""""",, .... fmplitd. Th ...... '.b In ' br TtaSl .... .... obl ll .... prima r.<i~ ... fdtlK'l' or ,he 'NIh of tho ~1'f ........ 1:f ",.<k th<rdn. Trull ...... 11 l !>PIy lhe ~ or Ih~ .. Ie In 1M 1011.,..'1", orllcr: (I) 10 oil ape .... 01'1 ... .. ' •• lr.o:I""ln~, but "'" Ihniud 10, ra<on.w. Tnasc""' •• ",, . tt ...... ~.· 1_; (bl 10,11, ..... ><,.;"n:,'~' ",I, 8<".,';" 1""1,,, .... .. ,; »n~ (hall «<jU<$'

TfUSI .. 10 rewn •• , lhe Propmy lIId 5b>Jl JUlI'eIlder <hi. Seauity ImlTum"", and ai, ..,. .. evidencinJ debt 0<C\Ir<d by th~ S«:uriry ]""1'IIl'IItfII 10 TAW .... Tru,,,,e J/ull """""'J' tho Pruperty without ""orran\), 10 ,bo ... ....,n Or ""...".., kgllly "'Iilitd 10 it. lmdcr may char&< su<h penon 0,- I"'/WTII' I~. "" for .-.conveyi"1 !lit PropertY. bu1 only if,.,. roo i, ""id 10" 'hi..! 1'*'11 (>uch as the Tru" .. )'Of .. "' .... _red and til< d\lJ"~i", 01 tho fee i. permitted undor AWI .. >bI. Law. ]f,,,, fcc clwge8I11.,. T .... ' ... LmcIer ... ill opo;"". ""'~ from lime '0 'ime 0W0i1ll' ~ """"'0 any TM!'" app<>in1«\ I>emmde< by an 1M", • ."..." ""OCU1od and .. _,odled by Lender and ,ecotded in tilt- ofr". of ,Ilt- Rooorder 01 !be C<)Uply in which tbe Propeny is Iocatod . The: ins'"",,",,1 shall """,>in lilt ...... oflhe oril ina) ~er. Tm" .. and 80"""",. ,he: book and pace "here 'hil Soxwily 1n>!rumen1 is ,""",~ed and lhe name and add,.,.. of !be ""'""">01' ""''',... Wi,l>oul ronver"""" of the I'ropo,,~. the .uotn"'" lrust", sh>Il succeed '0 011 ,be litl •• po ...... and dUl~ tonfened upon the Trume hettin and by Applioobl. u .... This pr«edu", for '''''',iIUliort of lrusla: stWl lov.m '" tilt ."IIISion of 011 Olhet provisions for subsOil",;"" .

lS. S'. ' ..... nl or Obli~.llon ~' .... L.tndor may ""II.." > r .. not '0 OJ.oeod tho ....... i ....... amounl permillCd by Applicable \..ow for furnishi", tho st""","", of obliSOlioo .. provi<led by Sec,i"" 294) of the Civil Cede of Colifomi>.

BY SIGNING IIEWW. fIc~ IOcqtIS oncIas ..... to the temlS and CO>OIUnl. """,.ined in Ibis Sccuri'~ lnstrumem ond in any Rider =,ed by 801"10....." and rtCCrdcd .... b i, . Wimts>a:

STATE OF C .... tf~1O.

COUNTVOf." ~'f'

00 --\-JW . \0 • ,:2()[)l p

J.n:!.OO~W 0M\eZ .

} 8.8.

• """ .... _"'."" ""_c...mr .... SI .... __ "A ',!hQO J . \)="''6.

.. -.oily "-' '" .... I" _ .. "'" "" .... _ 01 -...."y _)IC .. IIIo--..n(tl __ oI ...... __ ...... _1 __ ,.odoc~IC ... __ •• ~

.... -"'--~ ........ 111'-........ ~lI(tl"" .... __ ...... OOfI(.) ... ""_""""_

01 ""'"'" tIIO ,,000"1(0) """" ••• "" .. oct "'" -....-. WInlESS",.,. ........... _ ...

CAU.QIUo·'A..so.,p_Iy.r.-k ." ><IP_ M .. II:' ..... OK~1 "'!ITII l/!o,E.'" F ...... JOO!I 11(11 joop 11 0/ 121"'l"}

1111 I Iii IIII~IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

SCHEDULE "An LEGAL DESCRIPTION

20 064926 ~",

l}lE WEST d9 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 71 N B!.OCK4 Of THE HANBY AOOITION I~ THE em OF BISHOP. COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNlA.AS PER MAP OF SAjDAODlTION fiLED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 1. PAGE 30 OF MAPS. IN THE OFfICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT 4

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Recording rcqtlts:cd by:

SERVIC£LlNK, A Dl"JSIO~ OF eHICACO TlTlL lNSURA"CE COMPANY

When Recorded ""a il To:

NDEll West, LL.C. 15000 Surveyor BouJevard, Sai1e SOO Addison, Tuu 15001·9013

IlIInIDUIUIIHIIIWI~nllal DFF2<l090 134001964

CERTJAED TO BE A TRUE AND EXACT COPY OFTHE ORIGINAI-:rCU1'E1\T RECORDED:

Q7 la Z5 AS INSTR LJ VlENT NUMIlt'R:

'Ur;;9 - ODD:?";> 9 AS BOOK: 4

BY SERVJCEUNK

Trustee Sale No. ; 2009013.4001964 TitK Order No.: 1 DOO9.4

rnJ'ORT ANT NOTICE

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST

IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEfUND IN YOUR PAYMENTS IT MAYBE SOLD WITHOur ANY COURT ACTION., and you may ha .... e the lepl right 10 brine your acCQ\.rlt in good.

standing by pilying all of your pas1 due paymenu pl:.Il ?cliTl incii com and opcns~ within the time pc:rmin(c! by I ...... for rti nsliWemcnt

of )'Our account, wh ieh is normal ly rive business da),s prior to rhe date set far the sale of your property. No sale: date may be ,ct unti l

thre< months from tnc: dlle: lhis NOlice of l)cfault may be r:eorded (which dalt: of ~coTdation appeau on thIS notIce).

This amount is S10,21&'99 ~ af :zt l:z.tlOO9 and will j"crease until your account becomes current. While: your property is in roreciosure. yO·.J still muS1 pay adler o~ ; iistions (suc h as insurance and ruu) required by your note and deed of D'\ISI or mong.a,~. [1

you fait to make future payments (In the loan, pay tall:cs on the property, provide insurance or. the property, or pay 0Ii)er obJiptions as

required in 1le note a:"'ld deed of 1I'.JSt Of mona,aec:, Ihe beneficiary or mortel2ce may insi sl that you do so in order 10 reinstale your

aca;amt in gQOd stancmg. In add ition, th: benefJCivy or mongagce may require as a condifion of reinstatemenl that you provide

~ Iiablt wrinttl evidence that you ~id ail senior liens. prop:ny tiIXeJ, and huaJd insurance: premiums.

Upon your written request. the be1'lCfieiary or mortgagee will give ~u a wrinen itemizat;on or the entire amount you must pay. You may nat have 10 pay the entire u."1paid portion of you~ account. even lhooeh fu ll payment was demanded, but you must pay all amounts

:n default ;:1 the time p,aylnt:tlI is made. Hcwc\ICJ. you and your benefK:iary or mort&aRet may m:Jtu&Hy agree in writing prior 10 the: rime

Ihe notice or sale is poSlCd (which may I"iC' t be earlier than tOe three monlh period stared above) 10, among other things. ( 1) provKJc

additional time in which to cure the default by transfer of the prcperTy or otheNlise: 0 1 (2; establish a schedale of pa)'m:nls in order to CUre your default; CIt both ( I) ,net (2).

rallowinB lhe cKpinrion of the time period referred to in ':he first paDgr.tph of this notice. unless the obligtrion being fon=ckl:sod upon

or a scpu31e wriaen agteement betv.or:en you and your aedilor pe:mics a lOnger period, you have only the: !egal right to stop t1'1e sale of your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your credil01 .

,. .. ~1""

£6 ~ ~ 9LP O ~ £ uos~oe r! e£~ : 60 O ~ PO q9 ::l

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST

T"',\ee Sol. No.: IOD90130DI~ Title Ord~rNo. : 10009~

To find ouc the a.mount you must pay, or to !I:ra.,ge for payment 10 Slop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foro::;lmure for any

other ~ason. contlCt :

.""MERICA'S SERVJCfNC CO~PAI'Y' de NDEx WUI, LLC

13000 Survey.,. Sou)evard. Suitt: 500 Addison. Tnu 75001-9013

(166) 195· 1851

If you have any questions, you should COntact II lawyer or :he govemmC11tal agency which m~y have insured your loan.

Not'A.ithstanding the fact that your property is ir foreclosure. you may offer your property ror sale provided tr.e $!lIe is concluded prior

to the: conclusion of the foreclosure .

REMEMBER, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: NDEI' WUI. UC is the oriAm.a1 TruSlee. du ly appointed Subslituted Truslee. or at:[ing as Agent for the TruSlc:c or Bendiciary under a Decci or Trust dilted J01261':006. C::II:ec\lted b)l ALVSDN J . DENK. as Trustor,

III sec:urc obligations in (a\'o r of MORTCACE ELECTRONIC REC(STRA TTON SYSTEMS. JNC. (MERS). as Bc:l"ICf,cil!.ry

Rec:ordrd •• lI/JOllOD6 as Instrument 1\'0. 2006-()OO4926 g( official rcCOtds in the: Office of the Recorder of IN YO County . C.Ufornil, as more fuJly described on said Deed of Trust Including I Nott(sV Unconditional GUlulnfy " 'hich had a principal amount

of $11)4,500,00 thal the bc:nc:rlcial interest under said Deed or Trust and Ihe obligations secured thereby .ace presently held by t'1e

&nefidary; thai a b!t:acl\ of. and derauk in, the obliptioos for wl\ic:h !)lid Deed Df TNSt i! security has occum:d in Ihlt tht payment

has !'lot been :nade of:

THE rNSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AN"D INTEREST WHICH BECAME DUE. ON l1"1120118 ,<I\ND .4.LL SUBS£QUEST 'I"STALLMENTS, TOGETHER WHO LATE CHARGl;S AS SET FORTH I" SAID I"OTE AND DEED OF TRUST. ADVAA·CES. ASSESSM:ENTS, FEt5. AND/OR TRUSTLE FEES, JF ANY.

NOTHING II" TmS NOTICE SHALL 8E CONSTRUED AS A WAIVER OF ANY FEES OWINC TO THE BENEFICIARY U~DER THE DEED OF TRUST. PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF TIJE LOAN DOCUMENTS.

Thai by reason lhereof, the Jlres~t beneficiary under such deed of rrus:. has exe:uted and delivered 10 Slid agent, II wrinen Decl:rattOn of De:]Ju tt and Demand for SlIme, and has deposited with Slid agent such deed of truSt and all documents evickncing obligations

secured lhI:reby. and has dEdared and dDes n~by declare 811 sums secured thereby immcdiatdy due and pa:,.able and has elected and

does hereby elect to c:aus.c ,tic b'Ust property to ~ sotd 10 satisfy the obli~arions secUR':d I:h~rc~.

DATED: lIJ2l20D9

NDE:r Wcst. LLC as A&m1 C.r Beneficiary

u. J., •

By: Cheryl L. Ashe r

1:6ll 9LI> Oll: uos~oerr

U;d

NOTICE OF DEFAULT DECLARATION PlJRSUANf TO CAUFORNV\ CNIL CODE 2923.5

America's Servicing CO"1'all)' 3476 Stateview Bh'd Fort Mil\ SC 29715

Borrower. AL YSON J DENK Property Address: 486 N 2ND ST

BISHOP CA 93514

The I.Ildersigna:l mortgagee, bene ficiary, orthe;r oulhorized agent (coUectively, the "Benelo:iaryj repre",rr and decla= that the requirements ofCA Civil Code 2923 .5 have been met. This Declaration is required for any residential owner occupied property in which the loan was aiginated berween January I, 2003 and December 3 J, 2007 . Non-owner occupied and vacant propenies .... exempt from the requirements ofCA Civil Code 2923.5.

One of the relow necessary requ irements was mot by the Ben::ficiary:

•

•

•

•

Dated:

The Benelciary has made contact with the borrower pursuant to CA Civil Code 2923 (a)(2). Contlla with the borrower was made in per>on or by telephme to assess the borrower's financial situation and explore options for tlr borrower to avoid foreolo,.,re.

Due DiliBl'nce to contact the borrower was exercised purswnt to CA Civil Code 2923 .5(g)(2) by the Beneficiary.

The bOfT(~"er has s,,"rendered theprop..-ty as evidenced by either a leuer confirming the surrenelet' or de6\'ery of the la!ys to tlr property to the mongagee, TruSlee, beneficiary, or authaited a",nt p\rsuant toCA Ci,jJ Code 2923.S(hXI) .

The borrCM'er has contracted l'ith an organizalim, per9:ln. or entity whose primal)' business is advising people who ha\e decided to leave their homes on how to extend the fo~la;ure process and avoid their contractual obHS!tions to mortgagees or beneficiaries pUr>uantlO CA Civil Code2923.5(h)(2) .

The borrower has filed for be.nkrupcy and the proceedings have rot been finalized pursuant 10 CA Civ~ Code 2923.5(h)(3) . .

W"O"" ni;1i~j~ Amerta'SserviCillJoo; pan;;

£6~ ~ 9LP O ~ £ uos~oe!! ep ~:600~ Po qe~

EXHIBIT 5

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE

'.

Recording requcsted by: SERVlCELlNK, A DIVISION OF CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

When Recorded Mail To: NOEl. West, L.L.c. I SOOO SQrveyor Boulenrd. Suite 500 Addison l Te .. s 75011-9013

* .~TTR? () () C) () 1 ~ 4 () SUB200e0134001964

, lllIlllIIgIOII IIIUIIHIIfII~nm ,- --, 000, CM!Y Recorder lYl!/y A, ROFER Co Recorder Offiee Q9C- 2009-0000818-00 .. .--ell Nu.b.,. SItS33

~~ .... , ~ 1!7. 2Ile9 111"41 ,11 $1." .S'U $1.1t1: ItiC sa "

SYS $2 ·" :SST $1.": .

Ttl Pd $IUt ~ __ 78928 D"O/Rl/1-2

s~ MIooie this lillO for Recorckr'J ...: GIlly

Trustee Sale No.: 100901.140tIl964 Title Order No.: '!100094

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WHEREAS, ALYSON J. DENK was the original Trustor. CH ICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Yl-1lS the original Trustee. and MORTCAGE ELECTRONIC RECISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS) was the original BenefICiary Recorded on 1113011006.1 Instrument No. 1006-0004926 of official records in the Office of the Recorder of INYO County, C.llronlt, as more fully described on said Deed of Trust.; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is the present Beneficiary under said Deed of Trust, and WHEREAS, the undersigned desires to substitute a new Trustee under said Deed of Trust in place and instead of said prior Trustu.

NOW. THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby substitutes. ND[lI West, LLC., WHOSE ADDRFSS IS: 15000 Survtyor BotIlevard, Suite 500, Addison, Tens 15OOJ-,.I3, as Trustee under said Dctd o(Trusl. .

Whene't'er the context haeof 50 requires, the ITWculine gwdcr includes the feminine anO'or neUler, and the sin&ul .. numlxr includes the plural.

DATED:

03116/2009

State or South Catalin. } County ~t York}

Wells Fargo B1l1k NA, Attomey in Fact for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TItUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET SECUR IZATION CORPORATION lltUST2007-HE2

--On 03/1612009 before me, ' NOIIUy Publk:, personally appeared Anne Neely who proyed to me on the basis ofsatisractory evidtnCt to be the persoo(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thai helshe/they executed the same in hislher/their 8uthorized"cipacity(ies). and thai by his/hcrlthcir sienature(s} on the inslI'I.Imcnt the pcnon(s). Of the entity upon bchalrorwflich the pcnon(s) acted, executed the mstrument.

(!fsigned and notarized in South Carolina):

I eertify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Sta(e or South Carolina that the foregoing pIoRgnph is true and correC1.

WITNESS my hand and official.seal.

Si&MlUfC: l:\OAO ,j . r '3)

PIocorl.'1

EXHIBIT 6

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF SOT

NDE, West, L.L.C 15000 Sun:eyor Boulevard, Suite 500 Addison. Texas 7500 1·90 13 Telephone: (866) 795-1852 Tclecopier: (972) 661·7800

AFFIDAVIT

TRUSTEE'S SALE NUJl.mER: 20090 13400 1964

I. Brooke Ewing, the undersigned, a United States Citizen declare that:

r am an employee, oyer the .ge of eighteen years, of

NDEx W est, L.L. C., andlor NDEX,

whose business :Jddrcss is:

15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500, Addison., TeKas 75001·90 13

]n eompli.nec with Section 2934a(b) of the Civil Code of the State of California, Nolice has been given to the prior trustee Ihen of record, that NDE:. West, L.L.C. has been substituled as lruslee under the Deed of Trust descdbed in tbe attached copy of Substitution of Trustee and a copy of said Substitution of Trustee has been mailed prior 10 Ihe recording thereof, in the manner provided in Section 2924(b) of the Civil Code of the Stale of California to all persons to whom a copy of the Nolice of Default would be required to be mailed by the provisions of said section.

NDEx W.st, L.L.C., andlor MOE){

March 25 2009 DATED

Srolte of TEXAS Count)! of DALLAS

On March 25, 2009 before me. Rachel N. Mirel~s Notary Public, persol1;1l1y appeared Brooke Ewing perscmal1y known 10 me (or proved 10 ltIe on the b:1Sis of s8!isf1lctory c:v idcr.ce) ;:0 be the Fc:-son(s} whose namc(s} is/are subscribed 10 within inSlTUment and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed Ibe same in his/her/their a.uthorized cap.ilcity(ies), and Ihat by his/hcrltheir signClture{s) on the inslrument the person(s), or tile: entity upon behalf or which. Ihe pers,:,r.(s) acted. c:'tccuted the inslrument.

W IT;\lESS my hand :md ofliciil ] seLl!.

SignDturc: ~ __ (5.,,)

My commission expires: _____ ______ ___ _

\mIJWlnII II WIWI\IW~mIWIUU~III1III~I!n SBC20090t34001964

£6~ ~ 9LP O~£ uos~oerr

EXHIBIT 7

ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

.,

Recording requested by. SERVICELINK. A DIVISION or CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

When RttOrded Mail To: NDEx West, L.LC. 15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suill' 500 Addbo_. Tun 75011·9013

1IIElllllllllnnlllllllill ASSG20090134001964

UIIUIiIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI Nil INYO I County}ecorder MRY A. ROPER Co Recorder Offiet DOC- 2009-0000767-00 cn.ck ",,-"r 5ae46 _day. APR 01 . 2ee9 10 ,21 ,59 "Ie $1.":$21 .. ... IU C $5 . " SYS $\." :SST 11. .. :

Tt I Pd sue Itr-eeeee7eaJ6 DMD/R1/1-1

Tnt~tee Sak No.: 20090134001964 Title Order No.: '.100094

ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby granl$, assigns and transfers to DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE.2 all benefICial interest undl!r that certain Deed of rrust dated .812612006. executed by ALVSON J. DENK, as Trustor to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA'KY, Trustee, and R«.rdcd OD 11J3t12006 at Inrtrummt No. 2006-000491' o(Offici.1 Records in the County Recorder's office of INYO County, California. Describing land thuein : AS DESCRIBED IN DEED OF TRUST MENTIONED ABOVE.

To&ether with the note or notes themn described or referred to, the mont)' due and to become doe thereon with interest, and all rights accrued Of to 1IC(;ruc: un<kr said Deed of Trust.

Da1<d

State of County of

MAR 19 2009 MORT NIC STRATION SYST S, INC. AS

OMINEE FOR DECISION ONE PANY,LLC

Stephe Asslstaut Secretary

Before me F5<tL.c Je"J) I4ecQa(\'~e und~igncd Notary Public, on this day pcnonally appeared Stephn C. Porter. who is the Auistant SKretary of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS. INC. AS NOMINEE FOR DEOSION ONE MORTGAGE COI\o1PANY, LLC, IS corponlion, on behalf of iaid corporation, known to me to be the penon whose namt is subscribed to the forego ing instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe execute<! the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.

Given under my hand and Kalofofrtee thiS _ _ ~O~

My Commission Expires: Notary Public Signature

7..--(424 f) t~ J€.q(J IkuzO/1Jn ~ ESTHER JEAN HERNANDEZ Printed Name of Notal)' Public (im) NoIa'Y Public. SIal. of Texas ~ My ~~s:.n ~,rrm

Page l ofl

EXHIBIT 8

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE # 1

Recording requested by: SERVICELINK. A DIVISION or CHICAGO TITLE JNSURANC£ COMPAriY

When Recorded Mail To: NOEl West, LLC. lSOIO SunreyGr Bo.""".rd, Suite 500 Additon. Telu 75001 -911) t864S) "5-18'2

110111111111111111111 NOTS20090134001964

Trustee S3lc No. : 2U09UIl4UtI964

rlllllllllllWlln UHIDIIIIIIIIII ~I INYO, ~Recorder IIARY A. Co Recorder Office DOC- 2009-0001381-00 CNck ......... 1,...12 F.I~.y. !!AT 22. _ 11,42,43 "IC ,1. .. :&21 .. ... tREC $e . M SYS S1." I$5T II.M :

T\1 Pd $8." Nbr-MIM7!72S D"O/R1/1-1

Tille Order No.: 1001904 FHAIVA/PMI No.:

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE YOU AflE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED 1012612006. UNLESS VOU TAKE ACTION TO PRo'rECT YOUR PROPER'f'Y. IT MAV BE SOLD AT A PUBUC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OFTI-I[ PROCt: EDINC AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWVER.

NOEs WHI, lLC, tI$ duly llppOinted Truscce under and punuanr 10 Deed of Trust Rtnrdrd o. 1I1l112006.s Inslrwmenl No. 1~926 of officiol retards in the offlCc of the County Recorder of lNVO County, Stale of CALIFORNIA.

EXECUTED BY: ALYSON J. D[Nk, WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO HIGHEST BIDDER fOR CASH. CASHIER'S CHECKICASH EQUIVALENT or ocher ronn ofpaymcnt oulhOrizcd by 2924h(b). (piyablc at rime orsale In lawful money oflhe United SUlles).

DATE OF SALE: 0610812009 TIME or SALE: 12:00 p)1 PLAC£OFSALE: AT TJn: ENTRANCE TO INYG-MONO TITLE COMPANY, 873NORTH MAIN STRU~T, BISHOP

CA. Sl'HEIIT ADDRESS and other common deslanlltion. ifflflY, of the teal property dcscnbed above IS purponed 10 be:

436 NORTH 2ND STREIT, 81SHOP, CALIFORNIA 93514 APNff: 11-105-16

The undersilJned Trustee disc:loims any liabiliry for My illCOfTeCtness of the streel IIddrcss and othes" eommon desianation, if any . shown herein. Said sale wil l be made, but wilhoul: covenant Of worranty, expressed or implied, retardinB til lc, possession, Of

cncumbrances, 10 pay the: rCm#ining principal aim of the: wc(s) secured by said Dec:d of Trust, with interest thereon, 15 provided in laid note(s), advances, under the tenTll of said Occd of TIUJI, feu, charges and expenses of lhe: Trus1ec: ilOd of the trusts Cre3lcd by l :aid Deed of ·Trust. The 10f81 amount ol the unpaid balance of the obligation seelred by the property 10 be $Old and reasonable estimlled costs, cspenses and advances at the time of die ini tia l publical:ion of the Ncw:icc of Sale is DI',501.86. The beneficlluy under said Deed of TruSI heretOfore cltcl;utcd and delivered 10 the: undel'li"JCd 11 wrillC" DccIWlIKm of Default I1Ild Demand for Sole , and • wriuen Notice of Default and Election ((I Sell. T'he undc:T5iJ-Md caused said NOlice: of Default and Election to Sell 10 be n:oordcd in the covnty when- the real property i5 IQaued.

FOR TRUSTEE SA LE INFORMATION PLEASE CALL: ACENCY SALES'" POSTINC 321. EJ. CAMINO RE"I .. SUlft: 200

IRVINE.CA 92602 11 .... 73o.Zn7 _.Ip1Uap.«lM

NOEl: WHI, LLC. MAY BE ACTINC AS A 0£8T COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DE8T. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR TItA T PURPOSE.

NDt. W .... '_L.C ... A"~

:::-::-:-:--.,,=:--___ Le:.._~ __ ~ ______ Dated : O5I19nf09 QY: RllIIdy Middlelon

EXHIBIT 9

TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE # 1

761')878181')5 INVO COUNTY RECORDER PAGE I'll 11')2

.,R..cE:tjrding lequetlte.d by: NDt:x w .. ~ \ .. \ " C. 15000 Surveyor 80al"lr4, Suitt 5(10 Adctb:lln. TnlS 75001-9013

When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement 10:

DEUTSCHE BAm: NA nONAL TRUST .ct.1 c lo "'MERICA'S SERYlClNO CQMP"NY 7485 NEW HORIZON WAY IIWG. ) FREDl'RICK, MD 21701

IlmmllllllnlllllllllRl1 TDUS20090134001964

, .' '

TNstec Sole No.: lOO901340019fj4

1III1II1IIIUIIUIIIKII"IIIIIII~ili- ---I . .

INYO, County Recorder . MRV A, ROPER Co Recorder Ornee i . DOC- Z009-00025 t 5-00 ' Check N""'" 13_

, n."~.v, AUG 17, 2eet 14 ,ee ,2! ' "IC SI." :S2I SI." ' II£C SB ." SVS S2 . " ' SST $1 .11 '

Ttl Pd $l1.me Nbr-eeee073348

'"

DrtO/Rl/1-2

Sp~c above mis lint -for ReQOrdcr's usc only

Title: OnJer No.: '10ot!H

TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE The undersigned gtantO!' dc<IDrCJ: I) The Grllntee h~rc:jn WAS ,he forec:l",in& bcndi~Qry 2) The amount orthe ~id debt \Q~cdter wtU- eost WIl

3) The ;lmount JNid by the. gromfOe llt the trvsfft sale was 4) The doeumcm"Y ","Sr., ''''' ;. N/A¢ 5) Said property is in the oil)' of BISHOP ~) APN# OI·IO~

SJII,714.03 5212,500.00

ND'EX West. L.L,C. t as lne chJl)lBppointed Trultee \lndcr the Deed of Trust h~in3rter described, d0C3 herc},y If.nt :md CI:Ol\vey,

but wjchout c:oveno.nl nr warranty, express or implied. to:

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 11IUST COMl'ANY, AS 11IUSTIE fOR RSI ASSET Sl;CURmZA TION CORPORATION TRVST lOII7·1lF.2

(herein coned (iran\c'C),IU orb ris'n, title and jnlcre~ in and to that certain prnperty siruOlted in the County of fNYO, St;Jtt: of Califomia. described os rol1ow~ : '

THE WEST 49 fEET Of \.OTS 5 AND 7. TN 8lQCK 4.0P .. Tt\e HANBY.ADDInO!< TN THE CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY OF TNYO. STATe Of CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP'OF SAID ADDI~ION PILED FOR RECORl) TN BOOK " PAGE JO OP MAPS, TN THE OFl'lCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

AI'!<: 0'·'05·06

TlI1S INSTlIUIIlK1' IS RECOROED AT THE REQUEST OF SE!MCaJNKAS AN "CCOMMODATlON ONLY-IT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AS TO flS 8<EC\I11ON OR AS TO ITS EfFECTS UPON Ttn£.

,ctJ~~ T""lccOttdUpoflS~lt .ftI' · (OOIl4Jtl8) l .... orf. I'

MAli, Ti\X STATI!'M'l:NTS AS D1RT"cn:V ABOVE

. . . '.~. !'

--

VVI ... .J I LUUJ l.J. LO 1000 I tH,!!' ':> INYO COtJ-JTV R£CORDER PAGE 82/82

-- " - ~ "-'- l

. 2eeseN2sIs , Trustee 54110 No. : lOO9013400U ... Title Order No.: 41000'"'

"'I;crrALS: This ocmveyancc is made "ur,~uant to the POWW:T1 eonfm'ed ultnn T"I~~ by that cmain Deed of Tru!'Ot dared 10/161lOO6 and e."tecut~ by ALYSON J. DENK Trustot(s), and ReCorded on 11i311l00tt •• 1t!.!trutnfttf .No. ·2006.oo0492d of official record. or INYO Coun«y. C .. lifornio1.. .nd after futflllmcnl of 1M conditionupeciflcd in said Deed or Trust authori-d,,& this conveyance.

'. . .

Default OCCl1~ R.t sc::t forth in a Nnl,cc: of Oefa~ll and E.Ict::tion to Sen which w.~ reconlcd in the Orfice of 111<: R«'01'der of ,.id County. and such defalllt still u ;lted at the time of SOle.

1\1\ req\ri~mlnts orlaw ~llJ"djnl the m.Jilinc of "Wit, of notil::tl or the pubficDt;on ofa eOPY of the ~oljce of Ocrnlt or the pe~nnal delivery ofche copy ofthc Notice arO.fauh and the postin8 and pubHcati('ln of copies oflhe Notice Or;t Sale have beC!n compile<! with,

Tnlstee, in compliance with Aid Notice ofTl'UStee's Sale and in cxc-n;i:sc or ill powcn under gid Deed of Trust, sold the herein descri~d property.t publie ;ruction on 0'11011009_ Grantee, bei,., the hiahclt bidder at said sDle, became d'te pun::m.ser or".id property for the amount bid heine: 21l,508 ... in 1'''lIN! money orthc United States, or br credit bid irlhc Gr.nt~ waa the bc:ncficiary of said Deed orlrv~l81 the l ime of said jru$f.ec'", Sale.

DA ftD; 0811112009

NDE" Wei., L ..... C •• II. TrutH

____________________ A.utl\oriztd Agent 811112009 Rllldy Middl~toft DAT!D

Srallof TEXAS Counly Dr DALLAS

On 8/1112009 ""_ mo, Josle R. MoUna Nola,)! Public, pmonolly

appeared Randy Midd leton pt:rwnally known to me (or proved to me nn the btl! i! of ~~(.~tOI)' evidcfl«) to be the pcrson(,) whose name{l) iYllre subscn.bed to ehe within instrument and acknowtcdced to me dot.t ~'shclthey ~cc\llcd the ~me in hislherltheir .uthorized capaciry(ies), and that by bislhcr/their Jignaturc;:(s) on the instTUm~l1t the person(s.l. or the CTlUry upon behalf of whi~h the pc1"1on(3) ~tcd. c'uc\J!led the ; ~1fnent

My commissioll capire ," ______________ _

JOSIE R, MOliNA Notary Publl<: S..,.oIT ....

My COtnm. e.-p. , ' -"'2011

Pfllt 1 flf 1

/ CAUfOR.~rA DECLARATION

~ Chi"" Drown ,of AmofI<a'.krYI<l.,eo..".., ~.t.o.JI~ <!odor •• _ ponal'l ot pe<jUr'l. undo< "'" I .... of"'" 51 ... • fColiforot .. tII.oI ....... ~ I, u .. MIl carroa:

n.~l.OMsu.Iw _lL...»II'" _ .... ""' ..... IMcl_""'~ ofCorpcnlioo • _ ... 1aripnrJ _of~ ~ IOCalI""''' CIvil _ _ 192Ultt.Io"""",IIIII ... Id",,"'_""'_IoIN<Miooo.fSoloIo -~

Tk\ilootf ... ro. .... NoIia olSolo ~ II __ (0) "'CIvIl 0* _lnl .. U __ .-'--_"'''''''~1D _292332", mJ",.

EXHIBIT 10

NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE

Re:Trustee sale No. 20090134001964 Servicing LoWl Number: 1300025613

NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE

Attention Cberyl Asber ofNDex West Wld ASC Loss Mitigation Department -

I am inquiring to the mistake that seems to be occurring with regards to the trustee sale Wld "notice of bank ownership" posted August 18, 2009. My roommates called me Wld reported that they received a notice saying the bank now owned this property. Well of course, I said there must be a mistake; ASC has been diligently working on a loan modification. verified by all of the paperwork 1 sent them back on May 28, 2009 Wld June, 2 2009. The following correspondence we have had over the next 2 months indicate that ASC was still working on it, postponing the sale date until the 10Wl modification was ready for presentment to me. I have received no correspondence regarding the 10Wl modification nor any contact initiated to me by the negotiator as promised. Secondly I bave made offers to pay the debt, but was told "we wiu not accept payment until the loan modification is complete". As of 811912009 I spoke with Candy, Agent ID EGW in ASC's Loss Mitigation Department, and asked ber to report back to me in a recorded phone conversation what she had in the computer records as to what may have gone wrong.

Sbe verified that the Loan Modification bad been approved as of711712oo9, but the paperwork was never sent out. This was recommending a Forbearance Plan. She also reported to me that as of 712012009 the Sale had been postponed for a third time, and that papeIWork was never sent out. She reported to me the Investor approved the Loan Modification. as of 8/412009, and requested a few months be paid in the new loan terms before the Forbearance Plan was to begin. This paperwork was also never sent out. As of 8/ 1112009 the house was sold back to the Bank, Deutsche Bank; because non of the prior paperwork was sent. I am requesting a full investigation I to the mistake, and correction of the error. I am also requesting a full accounting from your phone and computer records in point by point format as to the actions and dates of where exactly the mistakes were made.

I appreciate the prompt reply to this. You may send those records to Alyson J Denk 486 N. 2'" Street Bishop, California [93514].

Thank you for remedying this error.

A<~"~~ AW r £)L-

EXHIBIT 11

RECISSION OF TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE

~- '. . .

Recording Requested By: NDEx West. LLC

When Recorded Mail To: N DEx West. LLC 15000 Surveyor Blvd. Su ite 500 Addison. TX 75001

TS No.: 20090134001964 Order No.: 100094

RBCOIding Requested ~ ServlceUnk 1111\11 I I 111111111111111111 11111 11111111

INYO, Count~ Recorder ~RY A. ROPER Co Recorder Office DOC- 2009-0002854-00 Check Numbe~ 13834Z

nd SEP 14 2009 15:36:03 ~fc aVS1.00 :S2I' $1.00 : REC $6 .00 SYS $2 .00:SST $1 . 00 :

Ttl Pd $11 00 Nbr-0000073852 . KRF/Rl/1-2

Space above this line is for Recorder's usc only

NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE (Civil Code Section 1058.5(b»

NDh West, LLC as duly appointed Substituted Trustee, under a Deed of Trust date 1012612006, executed by ALYSON J. DENK,'s Trustor, to secure obligations in favor of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), as Beneficiary Recorded on 11130/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0004926 of official records in the Office of lIIe Recorder of INYO County, California, as more fully described on said Deed of Trust.

On 512212009 NDEx West, L.L.c. recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale as Instrument Number 2009-1387 in the Office of the INYO County Recorder, stating its intent to sell the property at public auction on June 8, 2009. The sale was lIIen continued to August 10, 2009 at which time the sale was held as scheduled, and the property is described as follows :

Conunonly known as: 486 NORTH 2ND STREET BISHOP, CA 93514

Legal Description:

APN : 01-105-06

THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFiCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 01-105-06

A Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded on 8117/2009 as Instrument Number 2009-0002515 in the Office of the INYO County Recorder purporting to transfer title to:

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2

NOW THEREFORE, by lIIe recordation of this Notice of Rescission of Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, lIIe undersigned, as duly substituted trustee under the aforesaid Deed of Trust, does hereby rescind that certain Trustee's Deed Upon Sale recorded on 8/17/2009 as Instrument Number 2009-0002515. NDEx West, L.L.C. as substitured trustee has been instructed to rescind said Trustee's Deed Upon Sale for loss mitigation.

H:INDExWestlkell ieboICA_RTDUS.rpt

EXHIBIT 12

NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT AND LETTER ROGATORY

Savannah Alyson Jackson AKA Alyson J. Denk

r---

Postal Address: 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150 lake Elsinore, CA 92532

Phone: 951-246 9333

December 25, 2009AD

--

I John G. Stumpf, President and CEO Wells Fargo 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104

NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT

Subject: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT DUE TO FRAUD BY MISREPRESENTATION & NOTICE TO PREFECT SECURITY INTEREST IN HONOR FOR SETTLEMENT

Subject Property Address: 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514

Loan Mortgage Number: 2260061037264 - Deed of Trust

Dear Mr. John G. Stumpf,

This is an important Notice to infonn you of the MISCONDUCT of agents in your charge_ The appointed Trustee for the alleged Loan claimed is Anne Neely of your Bank's servicing agent, NDEx West LLC, 1500 Surveyor Blvd Suite 500, Addison Texas 75001-9013, has documented false allegations committing mail fraud in regards to the loan aforementioned_

On November 20, 2009, Savannah Alyson Jackson lodged a complaint with NDEx LLC, and a letter of Qualified Written Request. She received no response.

This dishonor has prompted a response from Savannah Alyson Jackson to you today to notifY you of the misconduct of those parties responsible for the proposed action to sell the property_

1

Prior to this communication, the alleged Beneficiary agent Cheryl L. Asher had claimed that Savannah Alyson Jackson's "Mortgage" was in default and sent and recorded in the Office of the Inyo County Recorder a Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964. Savannah was intimidated by the words written in bold; REMEMBER, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

Anne Neely acting as Trustees Sale Officer, recorded in the Office of County Recorder Inyo County, Substitution of Trustee on March 16,2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964.

Brooke Ewing declared by Affidavit, as an employee ofNDEx West LLC claiming notice has been given in compliance with sec. 2934a (b) of civil code, to the prior Trustee, that NDEx West LLC has been Substituted as Trustee and a copy mailed to the recording thereof, in the manner required by law to all persons to whom a copy of the Notice of Default would be required.

Savannah Alyson Jackson acquired help through the services of a Forensic Debt Auditor, to evaluate what the status really was with their alleged Mortgage.

While it may appear that Savannah Alyson Jackson was not openly registering her lien interest in her home and property every 30 days, by making a lien interest/investment deposit (otherwise referred to as a mortgage payment), be assured that she has always maintained and defended her interest by occupation of her property.

The non-response from your company does not comply with the Qualified Written Request demanded in Savannah Alyson Jackson' s letter, as none of the information requested whatsoever has been received. No claims by the loan servicing office have been made nor challenge nor rebuttal to the letter, which leaves only one conclusion, that Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC and their agents have neither security interest nor lien right to the property nor was proof provided to support their claim position. It appears NDEx West LLC have assumed the alleged Deed of Trust is still a valid security instrument, and that the Promissory Note (hereafter NOTE) has not been discharged by the alleged Lender, who endorsed the NOTE and collected its full value, according to the Lenders pre-sale agreement with the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Through the information gathered by Savannah Alyson Jackson ' Forensic Debt Auditor, it has come to their notice that BEFORE the Lender or Bank can make any claim of possession to the property, by presumption or assumption through an alleged default thus applying the alleged security instrument (Deed of Trust), they must establish the "Holder in Due Course" of the NOTE. If this NOTE is secured by the Deed of Trust, then and only then, can the true identity of the 'Person Entitled to Enforce the Security Instrument' according to UCC §3-302(e) can the Lender or alleged holder of the note, make any such claims and proceed to foreclose on a property.

This correspondence will serve to memorialize Savannah Alyson Jackson's dispute and Right to Cancel the Loan, aforementioned. This letter rogatory is also an attempt to establish confidential commercial information of known violations from the Audit and to identify unknown violations and crimes through this disclosure process using the following federal and state laws, including, but not limited to, the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), UCC § 9-210, the Financial Accounting Standards Board codes and this Conditional Acceptance Letter Rogatory.

2

Letter of Oualified Written Request

Please see attached Letter of Qualified Written Request that has to-date been left unrebutted, by the Bank' s Servicing Provider. (Addendum A)

This letter also serves as a NOTICE TO RESCIND the above-referenced alleged mortgage loan as it is believed to be founded on Fraud by Misrepresentation in Ab Initio. Please be advised that the Lender' s original security interest in the above referenced property is now void, unless you, Mr. Stumpf have information to the contrary of which Savannah Alyson Jackson does not believe exists.

All Rights Reserved

A copy of the Limited Power of Attorney (Addendum B) has been attached to this Letter for your convenience so that all communication in the future can be processed through the undersigned, Felicity Eubanks at the above address and phone number.

Felicity Eubanks (POA) seeks your immediate and personal intervention into this matter as Savannah Alyson Jackson pledges this bond of peace to you in all communications. Savannah A1yson Jackson accepts your bond of peace in all your communications. Savannah A1yson Jackson hereby reserves all rights and abandons none, also rescinds all signatures and revokes all Powers of Attorney for agents of Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC by presumptions and assumptions or otherwise.

Savannah Alyson Jackson trusts this communication with you will prevent further damages to her, to your company and to any other parties who appear to claim an interest in her private life, liberty, and property.

This notice and agreement is presented to you, in peace, in your private and personal capacities.

Conditional Acceptance

I. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accept that the alleged Beneficiary MERS agent Cheryl L. Asher, did not commit perjury nor fraud by misleading, the Recorder of Inyo County, California in filing the 'Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 upon proof of claim that MERS acting as Beneficiary and NDEx West LLC acting as Trustee idd show that either are the "holders in due course" of the NOTE (evidenced by exhibiting the instrument) or did show authorization as agents, to do so, according to ucc § 3-501 (bX2). Savannah Alyson Jackson believes when her NOTE was endorsed by the Lender 'without recourse' all her obligations to the NOTE and Security Instrument (Deed of Trust) were fully discharged under § 3414 (e) of the California Commercial Code as a disclaimer of liability for the drawer/maker to pay the Note and that the Lender has made material alterations to the Promissory Note without the authorization or consent of Savannah A1yson Jackson, thereby discharging the obligation of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust under § 3407 (1)(b) of the California Commercial Code.

3

2. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Anne Neely ofNDEx West LLC did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading her into believing that she still owes a valid debt upon proof of claim that the Lender gave her consideration of money otherwise a loan prior to her signing the NOTE that claimed in paragraph 1. BORROWER' S PROMISE TO PA Y "In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay u. s. $ 304,500.00 (this amount is called "Principal ''), plus interest, to the order of Lender. " and that the Lender could show in their bookkeeping ledger accounts pursuant to (GAAP) this amount having been deposited into Savannah Alyson Jackson' account or similar transaction before the day Savannah Alyson Jackson signed the Note.

3. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that NDEx West LLC did not violate TILA and RESPA laws, by not providing the Qualified Written Request information outlined in her Notice of November 20th 2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC made a honest attempt to resolve the complaint in writing.

4. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Anne Neely, the Trustee Sale Officer of NDEx West LLC, did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading the public and prospective buyers, in selling her home at a Trustee Sale upon proof of claim that Anne Neely had full consent from Savannah Alyson Jackson to do so, and that they were not following a standard banking foreclosure procedure by disregarding Savannah Alyson Jackson's Notice of Rescission and dispute over the alleged debt.

5. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the Lender disclosed all relevant loan application information pursuant to Federal and State Laws including but not limited to TILA, RESPA, REG Z and UCC § 9-210 upon proof of claim that she was told their NOTE was to be endorsed by the Lender, to fulfill the pre-sale arrangement of the pending Note with the identified Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the buyers.

6. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the NDEx West LLC alleged Trustee and any other affiliates regarding this matter have not violated U.S.C. Title 12 Chapter 38A "Single Family Mortgage Foreclosure Act", § 3755 ' Prerequisites to Foreclosure' whereby, only the Secretary of HVD as holder of a single family mortgage may foreclosure upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC of California and the alleged Trustee NDEx West LLC and any other affiliates have received a letter from the Secretary of HUD allowing them permission to foreclosure on Savannah Alyson Jackson ' s single family home.

7. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Decision One Mortgage Company LLC, as the alleged Lenders had not sold the Promissory Note as collateral for the obligation or security of the Deed of Trust and has retained legal or equitable interest in the collateral under § 9318 (a) of the California Commercial Code upon proof of claim that anyone can produce the original wet ink note unaltered and without endorsement.

4

Opportunity to Cure.

Savannah Alyson Jackson requests your response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this Notice, with your rebuttal in the form of an affidavit challenging point by point, under Penalty of Perjury, under your full Commercial Liability (as this leiter will be used in a Court of law) addressed to Savannah AJyson Jackson, c/o Felicity Eubanks, 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532. Your silence will be taken as acceptance, acquiescence and your tacit agreement with all seven (7) requests for proof of claim made in this notice, to perfect a security interest in Savannah AJyson Jackson's name and favour, in accordance with UCC § 9-309 through 9-318.

If, after careful review of this letter and the related accounting, you fully agree that Savannah Alyson Jackson has an authenticated security interest, and that their home has been paid for in full and there has simply been an accounting error. Without reprisal litigation or dishonor, the remedy for settlement and closure in this matter, would comprise of the following:

I. The account Mortgage Loan Agreement # 2260061037264 is set-off to show a zero balance on the account.

2. All previous payments made into Savannah A1yson Jackson's loan escrow account be transferred into an appointed Attorney's Trust Account.

3. A complete Re-conveyance of the Property located at 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514, as required under the Deed of Trust.

4. All derogatory items related to this matter shall be removed from all credit reporting agency records.

5. All recording made with the Inyo County recorder in regard to the aforementioned Notices be vacated from the Recorder oflnyo County, California.

Respectfully, without ill-will, aforethought, frivolity, malice, or vexation,

cc: Laura Kruger

Without prejudice UCC 1-207; 1-103

Executive Mortgage Specialist Office of the President MAC X2302-02J I Home Campus Des Moines, IA 50328-0001

Savannah A1yson Jackson by Felicity Eubanks, POA Trustee and Authorized Representative

5

Savannah Alyson Jackson AKA Alyson J. Denk

Postal Address: 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150 Lake Elsinore, CA 92532

Phone: 951-246 9333

December 25, 2009AD

John G. Stumpf, President and CEO Wells Fargo 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104

LETTER ROGATORY

Subject: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT DUE TO FRAUD BY MISREPRESENTATION & NOTICE TO PREFECT SECURITY INTEREST IN HONOR FOR SETTLEMENT

Subject Property Address: 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514

Loan Mortgage Number: 2260061037264 - Deed of Trust

Dear Mr. John G. Stumpf,

This is an important Notice to inform you of the MISCONDUCT of agents in your charge. The appointed Trustee for the alleged Loan claimed is Randy Middleton of your Bank's servicing agent, NDEx West LLC, 1500 Surveyor Blvd Suite 500, Addison Texas 75001-9013, has documented false allegations committing mail fraud in regards to the loan aforementioned.

On November 20, 2009, Savannah Alyson Jackson lodged a complaint with NDEx LLC, and a letter of Qualified Written Request. She received no response.

This dishonor has prompted a response from Savannah Alyson Jackson to you today to notify you of the misconduct of those parties responsible for the proposed action to sell the property.

Prior to this communication, your agent Randy Middleton had claimed that Savannah Alyson Jackson's "Mortgage" was in default and sent and recorded in the Office of the lnyo County Recorder a Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964.

Randy Middleton acting as Trustees Sale Officer, recorded in the Office of County Recorder lnyo County, Notice of Trustee Sale on June 2, 2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964. They claimed right of possession under the Deed of Trust unless Savannah A1yson Jackson took action to protect her property.

Savannah A1yson Jackson acquired help through the services of a Forensic Debt Auditor, to evaluate what the status really was with their alleged Mortgage.

While it may appear that Savannah A1yson Jackson was not openly registering her lien interest in her home and property every 30 days, by making a lien interest/investment deposit (otherwise referred to as a mortgage payment), be assured that she has always maintained and defended her interest by occupation of her property.

The non-response from your company does not comply with the Qualified Written Request demanded in Savannah A1yson Jackson' s letter, as none of the information requested whatsoever has been received. No claims by the loan servicing office have been made nor challenge nor rebuttal to the letter, which leaves only one conclusion, that Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC and their agents have neither security interest nor lien right to the property nor was proof provided to support their claim position. It appears NDEx West LLC have assumed the alleged Deed of Trust is still a valid security instrument, and that the Promissory Note (hereafter NOTE) has not been discharged by the alleged Lender, who endorsed the NOTE and collected its full value, according to the Lenders pre-sale agreement with the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Through the information gathered by Savannah Alyson Jackson ' Forensic Debt Auditor, it has come to their notice that BEFORE the Lender or Bank can make any claim of possession to the property, by presumption or assumption through an alleged default thus applying the alleged security instrument (Deed of Trust), they must establish the "Holder in Due Course" of the NOTE. If this NOTE is secured by the Deed of Trust, then and only then, can the true identity of the ' Person Entitled to Enforce tbe Security Instrument' according to UCC §3-302(e) can the Lender or alleged holder of the note, make any such claims and proceed to foreclose on a property.

This correspondence will serve to memorialize Savannah Alyson Jackson ' s dispute and Rigbt to Cancel tbe Loan, aforementioned. This letter rogatory is also an attempt to establish confidential commercial information of known violations from the Audit and to identif'y unknown violations and crimes through this disclosure process using the following federal and state laws, including, but not limited to, the Truth in Lending Act ("TTLA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), UCC § 9-210, the Financial Accounting Standards Board codes and this Conditional Acceptance Letter Rogatory.

2

Letter of Oualified Written Request

Please see attached Letter of Qualified Written Request that has to-date been left unrebutted, by the Bank's Servicing Provider. (Addendum A)

This letter also serves as a NOTICE TO RESCIND the above-referenced alleged mortgage loan as it is believed to be founded on Fraud by Misrepresentation in Ab Initio. Please be advised that the Lender's original security interest in the above referenced property is now void, unless you, Mr. Stumpf have information to the contrary of which Savannah A1yson Jackson does not believe exists.

All Rights Reserved

A copy of the Limited Power of Attorney (Addendum B) has been attached to this Letter for your convenience so that all communication in the future can be processed through the undersigned, Felicity Euhanks at the above address and phone number.

Felicity Eubanks (POA) seeks your immediate and personal intervention into this matter as Savannah Alyson Jackson pledges this bond of peace to you in all communications. Savannah Alyson Jackson accepts your bond of peace in all your communications. Savannah A1yson Jackson hereby reserves all rights and abandons none, also rescinds all signatures and revokes all Powers of Attorney for agents of Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC by presumptions and assumptions or otherwise.

Savannah Alyson Jackson trusts this communication with you will prevent further damages to her, to your company and to any other parties who appear to claim an interest in her private life, liberty, and property.

This notice and agreement is presented to you, in peace, in your private and personal capacities.

Conditional Acceptance

I . Savannah A1yson Jackson conditionally accept that Randy Middleton, Trustee Sale Officer for NDEx West LLC did not commit peIjury by misleading, the Recorder of Inyo County, California by filing the 'Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC allegedly acting as an agent for the alleged Beneficiary, could show that either NDEx West LLC are the "holders in due course" of the NOTE. Savannah A1yson Jackson believes when her NOTE was endorsed by the Lender 'without recourse' all their obligations to the NOTE and Security Instrument (Deed of Trust) were fully discharged under § 3414 (e) of the California Commercial Code as a disclaimer of liability for the drawer/maker to pay the Note and that the Lender has made material alterations to the Promissory Note without the authorization or consent of Savannah A1yson Jackson, thereby discharging the obligation of the Promissory Note under § 3407 (I)(b) of the California Commercial Code.

3

2. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Randy Middleton of NDEx West LLC did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading her into believing that she still owes a valid debt of $701 ,539.12 upon proof of claim that the Lender gave her consideration of money otherwise a loan prior to them signing the NOTE that claimed in paragraph I . BORROWER' S PROMISE TO PAY "In returnfor a loan that J have received, I promise to pay u.s. $ 304,500.00 (this amount is called "Principal',), plus interest, to the order of Lender. " and that the Lender could show in their bookkeeping ledger accounts pursuant to (GAAP) this amount having been deposited into Savannah Alyson Jackson' account or similar transaction before the day Savannah Alyson Jackson signed the Note.

3. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that NDEx West LLC did not violate TILA and RESPA laws, by not providing the Qualified Written Request information outlined in her Notice of November 20th 2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC made a honest attempt to resolve the complaint in writing.

4. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Randy Middleton, the Trustee Sale Officer of NDEx West LLC, did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading the public and prospective buyers, in selling her home at a Trustee Sale upon proof of claim that Randy Middleton had full consent from Savannah Alyson Jackson to do so, and that they were not following a standard banking foreclosure procedure by disregarding Savannah Alyson Jackson ' s Notice of Rescission and dispute over the alleged debt.

5. Savannah A1yson Jackson conditionally accepts that the Lender disclosed all relevant loan application information pursuant to Federal and State Laws including but not limited to TILA, RESPA, REG Z and UCC § 9-210 upon proof of claim that she was told their NOTE was to be endorsed by the Lender, to fulfill the pre-sale arrangement of the pending Note with the identified Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the buyers.

6. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the NDEx West LLC a the alleged Trustee and any other affiliates regarding this matter have not violated U.S.C. Title 12 Chapter 38A "Single Family Mortgage Foreclosure Act", § 3755 'Prerequisites to Foreclosure' whereby, only the Secretary of HUD as holder of a single family mortgage may foreclosure upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC of California and the alleged Trustee NDEx West LLC and any other affiliates have received a letter from the Secretary of HUD allowing them permission to foreclosure on Savannah A1yson Jackson ' s single family home.

7. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Deutsche Bank or Decision One Mortgage, as the alleged Lenders have not sold the Promissory Note as collateral for the obligation or security of the Deed of Trust and has retained legal or equitable interest in the collateral under § 9318 (a) of the California Commercial Code upon proof of claim that anyone can produce the original wet ink note unaltered and without endorsement.

4

Opportunity to Cure.

Savannah Alyson Jackson requests your response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this Notice, with your rebuttal in the form of an affidavit challenging point by point, under Penalty of Perjury, under your full Commercial Liability (as this letter will be used in a Court of law) addressed to Savannah Alyson Jackson, c/o Felicity Eubanks, 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532. Your silence will be taken as acceptance, acquiescence and your tacit agreement with all seven (7) requests for proof of claim made in this notice, to perfect a security interest in Savannah Alyson Jackson 's name, in accordance with UCC § 9-309 through 9-318.

If, after careful review of this letter and the related accounting, you fully agree that Savannah Alyson Jackson has an authenticated security interest, and that their home has been paid for in full and there has simply been an accounting error. Without reprisal litigation or dishonor, the remedy for settlement and closure in this matter, would comprise of the following:

1. The account Mortgage Loan Agreement # 2260061037264 is set-off to show a zero balance on the account.

2. All previous payments made into Savannah Alyson Jackson's loan escrow account be transferred into an appointed Attorney's Trust Account.

3. A complete Re-conveyance of the Property located at 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514, as required under the Deed of Trust.

4. All derogatory items related to this matter shall be removed from all credit reporting agency records.

5. All recording made with the loyo County recorder in regard to the aforementioned Notices be vacated from the Recorder of Inyo County, California.

Respectfully, without ill-will, aforethought, frivolity, malice, or vexation,

cc: Laura Kruger

Without prejudice UCC 1-207; \-\ 03

Executive Mortgage Specialist Office of the President MAC X2302-02J I Home Campus Des Moines, 1A 50328-0001

5

EXHIBIT 13

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE # 2

"U-- ~IIIU lliiIlUIIIUIRI~.lmll.I · - - '-'-"-. R~mg requested by: Sl:RVICELINK. A DIVISION OF CHICAGO TITLE I7'!SURANCE COMPANY

When Recorded Mall To: NO!!::r West, L.L.C. 15000 S UJ'Veyor 8o.le~r(I. Suite 500 AddiSOll, Teul 75001 ·901] (866) 795--1852

Trustee Sale No.: 20090134001964

INYO , CMtt Recorder !'.My A R(FER Co Recorder Off ice DOC~ 2010-0000159-00 Check frlMtM;r IIlft7 l\onOay J A/j 18 . :ze1~ 09,311 , 21 "Je il ... . 5 2 1 $ 1 . ,, : R£C $6 ."

: SYS $Z .,, :SSl $l . M =

Ttl Pd $1 ue Nbr~76285 D110 / Rl/1 - 2

Title Order No.. . i 00094 FHANAfPMI No.:

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE YOU AR.P:: IN Of.:FA.ULT UNDER A DEED Oil' TRUST, DATI:D IOf26/2006. UN L ESS YOU TAKE AcnON TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PU BUC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATIOS O F Till: NATURE 0.' lli'E PROCEEDING AGAINST VOU. YOU SHO ULD COfl,'TACT A LAWVER.

ND[X WEST, LLC. as duly lppointed Trustee under and pursuant 10 Deed of Trust Rftorded on I l fJOIZ006 • • JDstrumenl No. 2006-0004'26 ur ufft\.;a! records in the office of the County Recorder ur INYO Coon?" Stale uf CALIFORNIA.

EX1i::CUTED BY: AlYSON J. OENK., WilL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO HIGHEST RUlTlER FOR CASH. CA5HIER'S CHECtue::ASH EQUIVALENT or olher form of paymdll authorIZed by 2924h{b}. (payable at time of sale in lawful money ohbc Uni ted Stales). DAT E OF SALE: 0211012010 T IME OF SALE: 12:00 PM PLACE OF SALE: AT TH E ENTRANCE TO INVO-MONO TIT LE COMPAt'lY, 873 NORTH MAIN STREET, 61SHOP

CA. STREET ADDKI!:SS and other common designation. ifany. oflhe real property described above is purported 10 be:

4~6 NORTH 2ND STREET, BISHOP, CA LIFORNIA 93514 APH": 01-105-16

The Ill\dersi&ned Trustee disclaims any liability for any i .. w il cctuess of the street address ond oIher cnmmon designalioo, if IIny , shown herein. SaKI sate will be made, but without covenant or wamu;cy, expressed or imphed. regardIng tille, possession. Of

encumbrances, 10 pay the remaining pr inci~l sum of lhe noIE(S) secured by Solid Deed of Trust, with in~st thereon. as provided in said nate(I). advances. undEr the !ernul of said Deed of Trust, fees, charJes and expenxs of the Trusf« and of the trusQ ClUled by said Deed of Trust The rotal amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation JeCUl'ed by the property to be 50Id and reasonable estlnuted costs, ellptnses and advances at the time of the initIal publication of the Notice of Sale is 5323,862.09. The beneficitlt)' under said Deed of Trust heretofore eJl.cculed and del ivered to thE undenigned a wrinen Declaration of DefaUlt and Demand for Sale . :md a written Notice of Dcfnult and Election to Scll. The undersigned caused SIIid NOIiec of Default and I:!lectKln 10 Sell 10 be rec.ordc:d In the county where the: real propeny is located.

FOR TRUSTEE SALE INFORMATION PLEASE CALL: ACENCY SALES" POST ING 311 0 EL CAMINO IU: AL, SUITE: 200

IRVINE. CA '26OZ 714-7J001727 _Jp!asap.coln

NDEl: West, L.L.C. aJ Authorized A~ .".. _

NDEs Wat, L.L.C. MAY DE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR A l~r[M PTINC TO COLL~CT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION O DTA INE:O WIll.

BE USED FOR T HAT PURPOSE.

:::-:-::-:-:-:-::::-_ _ _ "'/:.-_ y--=~_'::...:l~"_''_ _ __ Dated: 1111312010 BY: Randy Middleton

h.:e l.r l

EXHIBIT 14 TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE # 2

/~ Recording requested by: '~I~EX Wesi, L.L.c.

Recording Requested By ServiceLink

15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500 Addison, Texas 75001-9013

When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement to:

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INYO, County Recorder MARY A, ROPER Co Recorder Office DOC- 2010-0000405-00 Check Numbe~ 147665 Wednesday, FEB 17, 2010 13:56:40 MIC $1.00:S21 $2.00:REC $13.00 SYS $3.00:SST $1.00:

Ttl Pd $20.00 Nbr-0000076701

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST .et al

cio AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY

7485 NEW HORIZON WAY BLDG. 3 FREDERICK, MD 21703 DMO/R1/1-J

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 TDUS20090134001964

Space above this line for Recorder's usc only

Trustee Sale No. : 20090134001964 Title Order No.: 100094

TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE The undersigned grantor declares:

I) The Grantee herein WAS the foreclosing beneficiary

2) The amount of the unpaid debt together with cost was

3) The amount paid by the grantee at the trustee sale was

4j The documentary transrer tax is N/A

5) Said propelty is in the city or BISHOP

(,) APNff 01-105-06

$331,908.13

$199,750.00

THIS INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED ATTHE REQUEST OF SERVICE LINK AS AN ACCOMMODATION ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AS TO ITS EXECUTION OR AS TO ITS EFFECTS UPON TITLE.

NDEX West, L.L.c. ,as the duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust hereinafter described, does hereby grant and convey,

but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, to:

DIWTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET

SECURITIZA TlON CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2

(herein called Grantee), all or its right, title and interest in and to that certain property situated in the County of INYO, State of

Calirornia, described as follows:

THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BlSHOP, COUNTY

OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE

FCUS_ Trustcl.:[)ccJUponS .. llc.rpl- (09/24/O8) / Vcr-IS Page 1 of 2

/~ Recording requested by: '~I~EX Wesi, L.L.c.

Recording Requested By ServiceLink

15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500 Addison, Texas 75001-9013

When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement to:

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INYO, County Recorder MARY A, ROPER Co Recorder Office DOC- 2010-0000405-00 Check Numbe~ 147665 Wednesday, FEB 17, 2010 13:56:40 MIC $1.00:S21 $2.00:REC $13.00 SYS $3.00:SST $1.00:

Ttl Pd $20.00 Nbr-0000076701

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST .et al

cio AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY

7485 NEW HORIZON WAY BLDG. 3 FREDERICK, MD 21703 DMO/R1/1-J

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 TDUS20090134001964

Space above this line for Recorder's usc only

Trustee Sale No. : 20090134001964 Title Order No.: 100094

TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE The undersigned grantor declares:

I) The Grantee herein WAS the foreclosing beneficiary

2) The amount of the unpaid debt together with cost was

3) The amount paid by the grantee at the trustee sale was

4j The documentary transrer tax is N/A

5) Said propelty is in the city or BISHOP

(,) APNff 01-105-06

$331,908.13

$199,750.00

THIS INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED ATTHE REQUEST OF SERVICE LINK AS AN ACCOMMODATION ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AS TO ITS EXECUTION OR AS TO ITS EFFECTS UPON TITLE.

NDEX West, L.L.c. ,as the duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust hereinafter described, does hereby grant and convey,

but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, to:

DIWTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET

SECURITIZA TlON CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2

(herein called Grantee), all or its right, title and interest in and to that certain property situated in the County of INYO, State of

Calirornia, described as follows:

THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BlSHOP, COUNTY

OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE

FCUS_ Trustcl.:[)ccJUponS .. llc.rpl- (09/24/O8) / Vcr-IS Page 1 of 2

Date post:	18-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	savvyfirefly
View:	34 times
Download:	2 times

Complete First Amended Complaint - Savannah Jackson - 4-18

Documents