Declaratory Judgment Dismissal Appellate Brief 2014

7/27/2019 Declaratory Judgment Dismissal Appellate Brief 2014

1/29

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant seeks an oral argument in this matter as it will afford the appellate

court the opportunity to gain a full comprehension of the true nature of the engineered

real estate boom/bust cycle ending in 2008, the subsequent unlawful fraudclosure

epidemic and how it affects the people within the Courts urisdiction! "ral Argument

would be of substantial #alue to the Court and in the interest of the people,

particularly in light of the fact that the underlying dispute is one sounding in equity!

$ennessee affords substantial respect to equity %urisdiction, ha#ing maintained a

separate and distinct Chancery Court, where the spirit of former Chancellor &enry '!

(ibson li#es on!

STATEMENT OF ISSUES/ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

)! *hether the court erred in finding that +efendants/Appellees do not owelaintiff/Appellant a duty to produce a genuine claim with the requisiteelements, when attempting to collect on a purported obligation, includinginitiating a non-%udicial foreclosure.

))! *hether the court erred in finding laintiff/Appellant did not state a claim forwhich relief can be granted.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

laintiff/Appellant, #ia a declaratory %udgment suit filed in the equity court on

ebruary 2, 2012 Case 3o! 12C884, Complaint, eb! 2, 2012, '! p! 1, sought an

order and decree declaring that when a persons4 makes a claim demanding money,

1


2/29

moneys worth, or a thing of #alue from a man or woman, said persons4 produce a

genuine claim supported with strict proof! 5aid genuine claim consists of two 24

elements6 14 #erified chain of custody to the title legal and beneficial4 to the alleged

obligation and 24 #erified accounting, comporting with (enerally Accepted

Accounting rinciples (AA4 and inancial Accounting 5tandards A54 170,

Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of

Liabilities,of all debits, credits and third party payments made for the benefit of

Appellant!

At the time of filing the original bill, eb! 2, 2012, Appellant was without

knowledge that $ennessee still maintained a separate and distinct Chancery court, as

do the states of +elaware and ississippi! Appellant belie#ed at the time that the

Circuit Court was clothed with both equity and at law %urisdiction! )f the appellate

court finds relief for Appellant could not be granted due to mistakenly filing an

equitable bill in the Circuit Court, Appellant will re-file said case with the proper

caption in the Chancery Court!

$he declaration sought by Appellant is in alignment with the clean hands

doctrine and the equitable ma9im :he who seeks equity, must do equity;!

Appellant, in alignment with and in support of the declaratory %udgment suit,

filed a separate 4!

2


3/29

Case 12C88 was remo#ed to ederal Court, "rder 'emo#! April 2?, 201?, '!

p! 1>! Case 12C88 was remanded to state court on uly @, 201?! emo and "rder,

uly 2, 201?, '! p! 1=! "n 5eptember , 201? the Circuit Court consolidated the cases!

"rder, 5ept! , 201?, '! p! 81!

)n 'emo#al, the +efendants/ Appellees alleged that the Complaint sought

+eclaratory udgment on #arious ederal claims including $ruth-in-ending

:$)A;4 and 'eal Bstate 5ettlement rocedures Act :'B5A!;4

Appellant successfully disputed this mischaracteriation, claiming that pro#ing

#iolations of those Acts was incidental to the state court suit seeking a declaratory

%udgment in an equity court! $he federal court agreed, resulting in remand to state

court! ibid'! p! 814

After remand, the equity court heard arguments on otions to +ismiss on

August 1>, 201? and instructed laintiff/ Appellant to file an Amended Complaint,

which was filed on "ctober 1@, 201?! 1st Amend Comp!, "ct! 1@, 201?, '! p! 8@!

$he court heard arguments on the otions to +ismiss and instructed laintiff to

file a 5econd Amended Complaint, which was filed on anuary >, 2017! 2nd Amend

Comp!, an! >, 2017, '! p! 1=0! $he court held a hearing on +efendants4 otions4 to

+ismiss Appellants 5econd Amended Complaint on arch 17, 2017!

"n April 1=, 2017 the court entered an order dismissing Appellants case!

"rder, Apr! 1=, 2017, '! p! 2?>! "n April 2@, 2017 Appellant filed a otion to

3


4/29

'econsider +ismissal! otion for 'elief, Apr! 2@, 2017, '! p! 27@! 5aid motion was

denied without a hearing! "rder, ay 17, 2017, '! p! 2@1! Appellant timely filed a

3otice of Appeal! 3otice, ay 28, 2017, '! p! 2@7!

LAW AND ARGUMENT

I. Defendants/Appellees Do Oe Pla!nt!ff/Appellant a D"t# To P$od"%e A

Gen"!ne Cla!&

$he Court correctly recognied laintiffs rimary Argument as being the

following6 :+efendants are andated to roduce a Dona ide Claim and ailed in

that +uty,; yet, in error, ultimately went on to find, in its April 1=, 2017 "pinion and

"rder ibid'! p! 2?>46

:$he Court is unaware of any requirement for +efendants to producedocuments prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings!;

or those following the golden rule :do unto others as one would ha#e done to

them;, not :he who has the gold makes the rules;4 seeking a declaration-- that before

a person makes a claim on a man or woman, that the claimant be in possession of and

produce e#idence of a genuine claim-- seems ridiculously self e#ident to reasonable

people!

&owe#er, its well known public knowledge that banks and their attorneys

systematically and routinely #iolate the golden rule, as e#eryone else is e9pected to

follow to ensure society does not self implode! ike the hypocritical parent that says

4


5/29

:Edo as ) say, not as ) doE; banks and their attorneys e9pect the rest of society to

follow the golden rule--e9cept for them!

$he preceding statement is not a fictitious bald allegation, it is fact! $hat fact is

supported by the o#erwhelming e#idence of banks and their attorneys filing false,

forged, fabricated and/or fraudulent documents and instruments in public land records

and court cases across the country! Any reasonable person attempting to rebut the

preceding statement would be made to look like an instantaneous idiot! $he e#idence

is found in the first amended equitable bill for +eclaratory udgment ibid '! p! 8@4 at

page 7 and F! 5! +ept! of ustice press release ibid'! p! 1=04 at p! 7 in the second

amended bill, an e9cerpt of which follows6

orraine Drown, former resident of +ocG, the document mill utilied by

fraudclosure mills across the country to create entire fabricated :loan; files

out of thin air for H@ including a fraudulent :original; note4, is now in %ail

for admitting to being responsible for forging, falsifying, and/or fabricating

o#er one million 1,000,0004 documents and instruments! $he number is

most likely ten times that amount! Case details are found in United States

of America v. Lorraine Brown, Case 3o! ?612-cr-18--2@ C', !+!

la!4!

$hese forged mortgage documents were distributed to %o"nt# land $e%o$d!n'off!%esand state %o"$tsall o#er the country!

$his scheme was part of the giant bundle of !lle'al %ond"%tknown asforeclosure fraud! According to statements of fact from the ustice+epartment, from 200? to 200 +ocG recorded o#er one million fakedocuments! $hats p$o(a(l# a lo n"&(e$! +ocG wasnt %ust forgingsignaturesI they were fa($!%at!n' ent!$e loan f!les! +uring the bubble years,they created a now-infamous &o$t'a'e fa($!%at!on p$!%e s)eet*where

5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38591053/Lender-Processing-Services-DOCX-Document-Fabrication-Price-Sheethttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38591053/Lender-Processing-Services-DOCX-Document-Fabrication-Price-Sheet


6/29

mortgage ser#icers, who )ad t$o"(le p$o+!n' !n %o"$tthat they owned thehomes they wanted to put into foreclosure, could p"$%)ase* at lo p$!%es,)ate+e$ do%"&ents t)e# needed! $o :Re%$eate Ent!$e Collate$al F!le,;basically the whole set of documents !n%l"d!n' t)e p$o&!sso$# note. $hatwould set a ser#icer back ,-.!

http6//www!salon!com/201?/02/27/shesJpayingJforJwallJstreetsJsins/

)n the conte9t of the current fraudclosure crisisKe#en more rampant in non-

%udicial foreclosure states such as $ennessee-- to entertain the erroneous :opinion;

of the trial court that, when challenged, there is no requirement to be in possession

of and no duty to produce a genuine claim prior to initiating foreclosure

proceedings, would lead to the following scenario playing out o#er and o#er again!

5aid scenario would make a mockery of the :%ust-us; system, causing chaos and

massi#e disturbance of the peace! )magine ifE!

udge ohn +oe finishes a day of work on the bench of the Circuit Court of+a#idson County, and returns home to recei#e a :bill; in the mail from AcmeCarpet Company :Acme;4 for H10,7@?!22! Acme claims to ha#e installedH8,000 worth of carpet in the home of udge +oe!

Acme claims to ha#e sent prior demands for payment to udge +oe! udge +oehas ne#er heard of Acme, and has no contract with Acme!

)n addition to the H8,000 of carpet installed in udge +oes home, Acmesclaims includes additional line item :e9penses; of :in-house collection fees; ofH8=, :administrati#e fees; of H?=, and attorneys fees of H1,0>!22!

udge +oe ser#es a demand for #alidation of the purported :debt; Acme claimsis due and owing down to the last penny! Acme ignores udge +oes demandfor proof of claim!

udge +oe sends a second demand for proof of claim, this time copying the"ffice of $he $ennessee Attorney (eneral! Acme ignores udge +oes seconddemand for proof of claim!

udge +oe surmises the claim was bogus, puts it on the list of :things to do;and goes on about udge +oes life!

6
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/shes_paying_for_wall_streets_sins/http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/shes_paying_for_wall_streets_sins/


7/29

)magine udge +oes surprise when udge +oe returns home from a long dayon the bench of the Circuit Court of +a#idson County, to find a letter sent #iacertified mail from the same law firm who was attempting to collect the alleged:debt; on behalf of Acme months ago!

)nside the letter udge +oe finds a :3otice of 5ale;! Attached to the 3otice of5ale is a copy of a lien filed on the land records of +a#idson County for failureto :pay; the alleged amount Acme claimed to be due and owing!

)nfuriated, udge +oe sues Acme and the crooked attorney who made a bogusclaim, after Acme was gi#en multiple opportunities to pro#e its claim, andfailed to do so!

uch to udge +oes surprise, udge +oe is informed that because there is

purported :self authenticating public record e#idence; of the alleged lien onthe land records, the land records dont lie, so the debt must be legitimate!"therwise, why would Acme and their attorney file a lien if they could notpro#e their claim.

urther, since the lien is public record e#idence, Acme and their attorney aretold by the presiding udge cair, that Acme does not ha#e to pro#ide anyfurther :e#idence; that the alleged :debt; claimed to be due and owing toAcme from udge +oe is :#alid;!

udge cair says :the lien says what it says, so it must be #alid;

$he abo#e scenario is real and particularied for some people in aryland who

are forced to e9pend time and money challenging purported :debts; absent any

foundation or strict proof emphasis in bold4!

:An affida#it %udgment for more than H,000 had been filed in 1, alongwith a writ of wage garnishment, but she sa#s s)e ne+e$ )ea$d a(o"t !t"nt!l e!')t #ea$s late$.

Angered that they could be held $espons!(le fo$ a de(t t)e# 0ne not)!n'a(o"tKand that had been documented with little more than a computer printoutof e#ys name and 5ocial 5ecurity numberKthe couple de%!ded to f!')tE!

In a hearing before Baltimore Circuit Judge Lynn Stewart Le!yrailed about the in"u#tice$ %&hey made these allegations, butthey havent proven anything,' Le!y #aid$ %&hey throw one

(


8/29

)iece of )a)er and )ut it with another and #ay you owe*2++++,'-

http6//www!citypaper!com/search/bcp-cms-1-12?@2-migrated-story-cp-2011112?-mobs-2011112?,0,=008?=7!story

$he abo#e scenario is also #ery real and particularied for former *est


9/29

udge 'owe, being a prudent consumer who did not slumber on hisrights, demanded a #erified audit and accounting, %ust as laintiff did threeyears ago!

)nstead of producing the bona fide claim supported with a #erified audit

and accounting which they cannot produce4, 3ationstar ser#ed a bogus 3oticeof +efault on udge 'owe, as a first step in an unlawful fraudclosure to co#erup their crimes! $his conduct is a common pattern and practice of thebeginnings of a co#er-up!

3ot only did Aurora and 3ationstar attempt to defraud udge 'owe andhis wife, it was also disco#ered that 2 different copies of purported :original;notes were disco#ered with fraudulent signatures of both udge 'owe and hiswife! :

)nstead of Acme Carpet, Aurora oan 5er#icing and 3ationstar ortgage were

the :persons; making unsubstantiated claims on the udge and his wife! )f the shoe

were on the other foot, and an unsubstantiated claim was made on a bank by a

consumer, that bank would be squealing like stuck pig to dismiss said claim absent

strict proof! )ts a two way street and the landmark case #oose v. #anderis rele#ant

and persuasi#e!

*hat Appellant seeks is so ridiculously simple and equitable, it gi#es pause to a

reasonable person to wonder why the :court; keeps attempting to tell Appellant :we

ha#e no idea what you want, and no idea what you are talking about;! $he claim by

the equity court that :we dont know what you want; is akin in re#erse4 to the Oafka

story :$he $rial; in which Anthony &opkins, in the screen adaptation of the book, is

taken off to his e9ecution, but is still uncertain of the :charge; against him! $he term

:Oafkaesque; is directly applicable to the :court; claiming they ha#e no idea what

Appellant is talking about!

/


10/29

$he preceding statement is supported by the following e9cerpts from the

5econd Amended Complaint ibid, '! p! 1=04 at pp! 1-26

p! 1- A declaratory %udgment is an equitable remedy that ser#es to terminate

the uncertainty or contro#ersy gi#ing rise to a proceeding, and to determine

some status, right, pri#ilege, or immunity between parties with antagonistic

claims and or legal relations!

$his purpose is stated #ery clearly by 3eal ! *einrich, Bsq! in

$eclarator% &udgment Actions' (hen Are The% A""ro"riate)emphasis in

bold4

:+eclaratory relief is appropriate when a litigant needs d!$e%t!on f$o& a%o"$t beforeta0!n' f"t"$e a%t!on! 5uch direction will afford the litigant$el!ef f$o& "n%e$ta!nt# o$ !nse%"$!t#! 5eeAmer. *ousehold +roducts, nc.v. Evans -anufacturing, nc!, 1? !5upp!2d 12?@, 12? 3!+! Al! 20014!;

$he o(1e%t of t)e de%la$ato$# 1"d'&entis to permit determination of acontro#ersy (efo$e o(l!'at!ons a$e $ep"d!ated o$ $!')ts a$e +!olated! Asmany times pointed out by this court, its purpose is to permit one who iswalking in the dark to ascertain where he is and where he is going, to turnon the light before he steps rather than after he has stepped in a hole! !ox v.

Athens eg. -ed. !ent., 2= (a! App! @8>, @7, >?1 5!B!2d =2, =200>4;

urther support for the right to seek the #ery specific declaration Appellant

sought from the court is found in the udicial 3otice, ud3otice, eb! >, 2017, '! p!

2?7 filed in the equity court on > ebruary 2017, e9cerpt below6

)t was clearly and unambiguously the intent of laintiffMAppellantN, under the doctrine of election, to in#oke the inherentequity %urisdiction of the Circuit Court! A de%la$ato$# 1"d'&ent!s an e2"!ta(le $e&ed# t)at !s not open to o(1e%t!on! $hefollowing e9cerpt from the 5upreme Court Act of 5outh Australia P?1 destroys any fri#olous ob%ection to the declaration laintiff is

1+


11/29

seeking! *hile not controlling, Australia follows the common lawand equity courts of Bngland as the Fnited 5tates has adopted atthe time of the American 'e#olution! $he following e9cerpt is notonly ad#isory but e9tremely compelling to wit emphasis in bold46

No a%t!on o$ p$o%eed!n' s)all (e open to o(1e%t!onon the ground that amerely de%la$ato$# 1"d'&ent o$ o$de$ !s so"')tthereby, and the %o"$ts)all )a+e poe$ to &a0e (!nd!n' de%la$at!ons of $!')twhether any%onse2"ent!al $el!ef !s o$ %o"ld (e %la!&ed o$ not!

http6//www!austlii!edu!au/au/legis/sa/consolJact/sca1?@18?/s?1!html

$he lorida Appellate Courts stated that Appellate Courts shall do equity! $his

Court is well ad#ised to take this Appellate +ecision into consideration as it is

persuasi#e and conforms to the equity ma9ims! emphasis in bold46

5ome argue that a court of equity is a legal relic! All %o"$ts of appeala$e $e2"!$ed to do e2"!t#! 5ometimes that requires us to order thatsomething be done which is %ust and equitable! ut differently, it is thema9im Qequity will do what ought to be done!Q W!t)o"t e2"!ta(le!nte$+ent!on* t)e !ll of t)e people !ll (e s!len%ed! Sterling v. Brevard

!ount%, la!App! @ +ist! 11-1=-20004 (eneral (ene 5terling, et al,Appellants, #! Dre#ard County, lorida, et al!, Appellees! 3o! @+00-@=8!+istrict Court of Appeal of lorida, ifth +istrict! "pinion filed

3o#ember 1=, 2000!

Appellant further stated in laintiff/Appellants "pposition to +efendant R$

Danks otion for ore +efinite 5tatement6

+efendants had a duty to comply with said disco#ery requests and#alidation of a purported claim per federal mandates as defined in 1@F!5!C! and 12 F!5!C!, per 'B5A, $)A, +CA and commercial law ascodified in $enn! Code P7=! $rial Court +kt! 20, ay 11, 20124!

)n essence the Court is stating that foreclosure proceedings, %udicial ornon-%udicial, may be initiated at any point in time by any :person; absent

11
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/sca1935183/s31.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/sca1935183/s31.html


12/29

meeting any of the conditions precedent and absent being in possessionof a genuine claim! As noted by rele#ant and well-established case law inthe 5i9th Circuit, howe#er, such is not the 'ule of aw or equity!

A. S!3t) C!$%"!t State and Fede$al La S"ppo$ts Pla!nt!ff/Appellant4s

De&and fo$ A%%o"nt!n'* P$oof of Stand!n' and Real Pa$t#5!n5Inte$est.

-c!arth% v. Ban of America contains an identical fact pattern and this court

should follow the persuasi#e law from that %urisdiction, as well as the law from

Federal *ome Loan -ortgage !or"oration v. Schwart/wald, 2012 "hio @01=

"ctober ?1, 20124,Federal *ome Loan -ortgage !or"oration v. ufo2012 "hio

@?0 11th+ist! Ashtabula +ecember 1=, 20124 andBA! *ome Loans Servicing, L.+.

v. -a"", 012345hio40678$welfth +ist! uly 8 201?4! )n "hio in %ust o#er the past

year-- uly 8, 201? L $he $welfth Appellate +istrict ruled that the same e9act sort of

issues countenanced in this case merited a full e9position inBA! *ome Loans

Servicing, L.+. v. -a"", 012345hio40678$welfth +ist! uly 8 201?4 emphasis in

bold4!

"n "ctober 2@, 2012, app filed a motion for relief from %udgmentpursuant to Ci#!'! >0D414, ?4, and @4! app asserted three meritorious

defenses6 14 he was not properly credited with some of the mortgagepayments he madeI 24 documents attached to DACSs complaint wereforged, altered, or tampered withI and ?4 DAC lacked standing to bringthe foreclosure action and/or was not the real party in interest!app also asserted that gi#en the forgery, alteration, or tampering of thedocuments attached to DACSs complaint, he was entitled to relief underCi#!'! >0D4?4! inally, app challenged the amount of damagesawarded by the trial court to DAC, pursuant to Ci#!'! >0D4@4, on theground the award was not supported by the record!

)n the case at bar, app alleged that DAC la%0ed stand!n' to f!le t)efo$e%los"$e %o&pla!ntbecause Co"nt$#!de no lon'e$ e3!stedwhen themortgage was MpurportedlyN assigned to DAC! $he trial court re%ectedappSs allegation on the ground it was B'5, not Countrywide, thatassigned the mortgage to DAC! &owe#er, as app notes, the assignmentof mortgage clearly states6 QB'54 ortgage Blectronic 'egistration5ystems, )nc!, acting solel% as nominee for !ountr%wide Ban, FSB, 9 9 9

12
https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=b209ffc97f4632997ff56f69b7d0ebadhttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=14&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=6e841b31beb50a138cb8dbc2c8057db4https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=257c970d330902b729c7df70fae3b361https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=71b476d0f5798f019922a3aa23fdfad5https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=c4dea7d7a35e4e2edb4bb5930c23134chttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=b209ffc97f4632997ff56f69b7d0ebadhttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=14&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=6e841b31beb50a138cb8dbc2c8057db4https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=257c970d330902b729c7df70fae3b361https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=71b476d0f5798f019922a3aa23fdfad5https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=c4dea7d7a35e4e2edb4bb5930c23134c


13/29

does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set o#er unto DAC &ome oans5er#icing, T T T a certain mortgage deed T T T together with theromissory 3oteM!NQ Bmphasis added!4 $he t$!al %o"$t6s de%!s!on doesnot add$ess Mapp6s alle'at!on t)at Co"nt$#!de no lon'e$ e3!stedwhen B'5, Qacting solel% as nominee for !ountr%wide,Q assigned themortgage to DAC! $here is no e+!den%e !n t)e $e%o$d as to )enCo"nt$#!de %eased to e3!stand/or was merged into Dank ofAmericaE!!EEEE!!*e t)e$efo$e $e+e$se t)e t$!al %o"$t6s f!nd!n' t)at 78AC6salle'ed la%0 of stand!n' does not %onst!t"te a &e$!to$!o"s defenseQ andremand the case to the trial court for a hearing to dete$&!ne 8AC6sstand!n' to s"e, and correspondingly )et)e$ t)e t$!al %o"$t)ad

1"$!sd!%t!ono#er the foreclosure proceedings! "n remand, the trial courtmust determine whether B'5 had the authority to assign the mortgage

and/or the note as the nominee for Countrywide in light of the claim thatCountrywide was no longer in e9istence when the mortgage was assignedto DAC! )n this regard, we obser#e that Schwart/waldonly requires a

party to establish an interest in either the note or the mortgage at the timethe complaint is filed in order to ha#e standing to prosecute a foreclosureaction! Schwart/wald, 1?7 "hio 5t! ?d 1?, 2012 "hio @01= at U 28, =

3!B!2d 1217EEEE!!EEE(i#en our holding on appSs first assignment of error, we decline

to address his second and third assignments of error as they are not ripe for

re#iew at this time! )f, upon remand, the trial court determines that DAChad standing to file the foreclosure complaint, app may appeal thatdecision and renew his arguments pertaining to the trial courtSs denial ofhis Ci#!'! >0D4motion, and in particular, the trial courtSs ruling on hisse#eral Ci#!'! >0D4claims and &e$!to$!o"s defenses!

udgment $e+e$sed and $e&andedfor further proceedings in accordancewith this opinion!1

1

0hio-# wellre#)ected e!er Law irm note#&he deci#ion in a)) breathe# new life into ca#e# of homeowner# who were foreclo#ed u)on by ban# with in#u7cientim)ro)er or incorrect )a)erwor$ 8hile it i# ad!antageou# to retain coun#elimmediately u)on recei!ing a notice of default or a foreclo#ure com)laint the e!erLaw irm under#tand# that many indi!idual# belie!ed that they were not able to do thi#when they were 9r#t #er!ed$ htt)::www$de!erlaw$com:fal;:.3thebanha#a

"udgmentinforeclo#urei#ittoolateto#a!emyhome$html

13
https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=47&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=40c4e3c24d8545d00cd74826ffbf90c5https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=48&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=0765217ea88604d31f6fad8c0f57b513http://www.deverlaw.com/falq/83-the-bank-has-a-judgment-in-foreclosure-is-it-too-late-to-save-my-home.htmlhttp://www.deverlaw.com/falq/83-the-bank-has-a-judgment-in-foreclosure-is-it-too-late-to-save-my-home.htmlhttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2012-Ohio-5017%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=1c06b59e8fc36541423bf7353d4ebd8ahttp://www.deverlaw.com/falq/83-the-bank-has-a-judgment-in-foreclosure-is-it-too-late-to-save-my-home.htmlhttp://www.deverlaw.com/falq/83-the-bank-has-a-judgment-in-foreclosure-is-it-too-late-to-save-my-home.htmlhttps://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=47&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=40c4e3c24d8545d00cd74826ffbf90c5https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=47277b78fe76cf5294102cc264b39f76&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2013-Ohio-2968%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=48&_butInline=1&_butinfo=OHIO%20CIV.%20R.%2060&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzV-zSkAW&_md5=0765217ea88604d31f6fad8c0f57b513


14/29

F!5! +istrict Court udge +a#id +! +owd r! in "hios northern district 5i9th

Circuit4 chastised C&A5B Dank 3ational $rust Co! and Argent ortgage 5ecurities

)nc! in "ctober 200= for what he called their :ca#alier approach; and :take my word

for it; attitude toward pro#ing ownership of the mortgage note in a foreclosure case!

ederal +istrict udge Christopher Doyko dismissed 17 foreclosure cases in

Cle#eland in 3o#ember 200= due to the inability of the trustee and the ser#icer to

pro#e ownership of the mortgages!n e Foreclosure !ases 2'1:!;!0080 through

1:!;!31063+ B+ "hio 200=4!

$he following e9cerpt from that Doyko ruling speaks #olumes and is squarely on

point6

3e9t, 5i9th Circuit ederal udge &olschuh followed suit6n re Foreclosure

!ases, Case 3os! 0=-c#-1>>, 0=-c#-10, 0=-c#-22>, 0=-c#-2=, 0=-c#-72?, 0=-c#-@?7,

0=-c#-@?>, 0=-c#->72, 0=-c#->=0, 0=-c#-=0>, 0=-c#-=17, 0=-c#-=2=, 0=-c#-=?1, 0=-

c#->?, 0=-c#-, 0=-c#-107=, 0=-c#-101, 0=-c#-111, 0=-c#-11@0, F3)$B+

5$A$B5 +)5$')C$ C"F'$ "' $&B 5"F$&B'3 +)5$')C$ " "&)",

BA5$B'3 +)


15/29

5imilar cases were dismissed during the past three years by %udges in

California, assachusetts, Oansas and 3ew Vork!

And &o$e $e%entl#;

Ban of Am.,


16/29

as e#idence when it granted Dank of AmericaSs motion for summary%udgment!

8. Pe$s"as!+e La T)$o"')o"t t)e Co"nt$# S"ppo$ts Pla!nt!ff/Appellant4s

De&and fo$ A%%o"nt!n'* P$oof of Stand!n' and Real Pa$t#5!n5Inte$est.

$he Court obliquely referenced the persuasi#e law cited by laintiff/Appellant!

$here is further persuasi#e law from California, *ashington 5tate, 'hode )sland and

$e9asKnon %udicial foreclosure states like $ennessee6 +emanding a #erified

accounting and #erified chain of custody legal and beneficial4 to the purported

obligation fits the #lasi v. Ban of America 028 !al. A"". =th>?th$ist. 21:6@ and

!osaa% v. -ES, C! A! 3o! 10-772-,201? F!5! +ist! BG)5 1>027 'hode )sland

201?4 cases! $he #lasiand !osaa% courts fairly and impartially4 correctly stepped

aside while the homeowner established the fact that a purported :assignment; was a

post-hoc fabrication!

rom *ashington 5tate6 *hen making a claim for money or monies worth, an

assurance of due performance must be produced! Certain information must be

pro#ided, and the harm comes from not knowing, i"so facto! or recent persuasi#e

law from another urisdiction 5eenecht v. Fidelit%, 2017 F!5! +ist! e9is 11?1?1

*ashington *+ August 17, 20174!

n? -- $he court obser#es that it is the beneficiary, not the borrower, whocan be e9pected to possess e#idence that it is the holder or owner of a

promissory note! $he %o"$t f!nds !t "nl!0el# t)at a Was)!n'ton %o"$t

o"ld ("$den t)e (o$$oe$ alone !t) p$o+!d!n' t)at e+!den%e! AstheBain court obser#ed, in cases where :the original lender haMsN sold theloan, thMeN purchaser would need to esta(l!s) one$s)!pof that loan,either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or bydo%"&ent!n' t)e %)a!n of t$ansa%t!ons!; 28@ !?d at 7=-78!

16


17/29

Any time spent in#estigating that chain of title constitutes an in%ury as well!d.

Dut the trial court erroneously failed to address this material issue and simply shut the

case down!

A claimant is required to raise 5tanding issues immediately or risk wai#ing

them! 5eeAB< Ambro v. Southern Securit% Federal, ?=2 5!*!?d 121I 2011 $enn! App!

BG)5 >2@ $3 Ct! App! 201146

*e ha#e re#iewed the record and ha#e determined that the standingargument was not raised in the trial court and appears, for the first

time, in 5outhern 5ecuritySs appellate brief! Decause 5outhern5ecurity did not raise the issue of standing in the trial court, ithas wai#ed the argument on appeal!

)n that case there was allegedly uncontested e#idence in the record to support

AD3s position! &owe#er, in this instance there is no such e#idence and Appellant

pro#ided a number of e9amples of rampant general fraud--in#ol#ing these same

parties and entities that do business with these parties, i!e! +ocG and orraine

Drown-- in an attempt to clue the Court into the fact that there could be fraud in this

case, but the fact remains that Appellant cant pro#e it because Appellant has ne#er

obtained a full accounting! $hats not the fault of Appellant! 5ee Onecht, n?,su"ra.

5o the trial court has laintiff/Appellant coming and goingEE As such, the

ruling is incomplete and arguably reads as pure sophistry! Appellant thereby tendered

a timely 'ule @ otion for 'elief seeking specific findings of fact and conclusions

of law with respect to the items clearly delineated hereinabo#e, but ultimately ne#er

got any meaningful response! Accord ;eal v. A*-S, 7@0 D!'! 8=I 2011 Dankr!

BG)5 2?@ thCir Dankruptcy 201146

"n 3o#ember @, 200, the


18/29

points and authorities in support of their claim ob%ection! Among otherob%ections, the


19/29

thing of #alueKeither %udicially or e9tra%udicially-- that :person; natural or

%uridicial4, &"stbe in possession of, and produce a genuine claim supported with

strict proof!

+espite Appellants right to demand a genuine claim is produced, substantiated

with strict proof, the equity court erroneously stated Appellant failed to state a claim

entitling Appellant to relief!

$hat is simply not true! After multiple pre-suit e9tra%udicial attempts by

Appellant to compel the production of a genuine claim, Appellant was left no choice

to assert that right in an equity court!

Appellant e#en pro#ided a semi- complete presumed chain of custody to the

title to the purported obligation to show good cause for seeking the declaration and

supporting documents! $he goal being to fill in the gaps once the declaration was

entered! 5aid sample being Appendi9 D attached to Appellants 5econd Amended

Complaint! ibid, '! p! 1=0!4

1/


20/29

Appellant stated a #ery simple claim, best summaried by reciting the #ery

specific equitable remedy sought in Appellants second amended bill for declaratory

%udgment at p! 1> emphasis in bold46

)'5$ CAF5B " AC$)"3

a4 $he court enters an "rder granting a $emporary 'estraining "rder

and reliminary )n%uncti#e 'elief e9pressly en%oining "D, $D,

B'5 or &5DC and/or their agents, principals or assigns from pursuing

any further %udicial or non-%udicial foreclosure action, for the reasons set

forth herein, until the merits of laintiffs case can be heard at trial, and

for any other and further relief which is %ust and properI

5BC"3+ CAF5B " AC$)"3

b4 +eclaring that Defendants* and all of t)e&* 1o!ntl# and se+e$all#*

oe a d"t#* and a$e o(l!'ated to Pla!nt!ff to p$od"%e a (ona f!de

%la!&* to !n%l"de a +e$!f!ed a%%o"nt!n'! 5aid st$!%t p$oof s)all !n%l"de

Pla!nt!ff4s a%%ess to $e+!e o$!'!nal* 'en"!ne* a"t)ent!%ated

!nst$"&ents !n %"stod# of Defendantsat a mutually agreeable location!

$he ele&ents of sa!d %la!& to !n%l"de a +e$!f!ed a%%o"nt!n' and

p$od"%t!on of a +e$!f!ed %)a!n of t!tle


21/29

d4 +eclaring that "D, $D and its/their agents, principals, transferors,

transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or

attorneys oed a d"t#* and e$e o(l!'ated to Pla!nt!ff* to

s"(stant!+el# $espondto laintiffs 3otices and +emandsI

e4 +eclaring that "D, $D and its/their agents, principals, transferors,

transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or

attorneys fa!led and $ef"sed to %o&pl# !t) state and fede$al la*

!n%l"d!n' t$"st* %ont$a%t* se%"$!t!es and %o&&e$%!al la (# fa!l!n' to

p$od"%e a (ona f!de %la!&!

Appellant also clearly articulated to the equity court the elements to be met for

the requested relief to be granted and how those elements were met in Appellants

initial complaint ibid, '! p! 14 at U 78 said elements were included in subsequent

complaints4!

> Ele&ents fo$ De%la$ato$# 9"d'&ent to 8e Met

(1)&here i# a bona fde,actual )re#ent )ractical need for the

declaration #ought$


22/29

(2)&he declaration deal# with )re#ent a#certained or

a#certainable #tate of fact# or )re#ent contro!er#y a# to a #tate

of fact#$ ?ntici)ated future contro!er#ie# will not #u))ort the

action$


23/29

(5)&he ad!er#e and antagoni#tic intere#t i# before the court by

)ro)er )roce## or cla## re)re#entation$

&he ad!er#e and antagoni#tic intere#t i# before the court by

)ro)er )roce## to nown )er#on# with an antagoni#tic intere#t

including 0B and &B a# )ur)orted agent# )rinci)al# or

a##ign# for ESBC @AS and for unnown )er#on# with a

)otential antagoni#tic intere#t in the #ub"ect matter$

(6)&he relief #ought i# not merely the gi!ing of legal ad!ice by

the court or an an#wer to ;ue#tion# founded merely in curio#ity$


24/29

$he Court erred in failing to recognie Appellants right to equitable relief,

stating that Appellant had not stated any facts that could constitute a Cause of Action

against any +efendant! $he following sample e9cerpts from Appellants well pled bill

in equity, makes it #ery clear in the :arties; section, stating why each defendant was

%oined6

@! "D is a necessary party as "D may claim to ha#e a legal orequitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in thecomplaint ad#erse to plaintiffSs legal and beneficial title! M5ee Chain of$itle worksheet e9posing une9plained gaps that will be e9plained when

the declaration sought is enteredN!

=! +efendant $D, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as$D made the initial demand of money or moneys worth from laintiffon the alleged account, as agent or purported :ser#icer; for "D! 3oticeto Agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is 3otice to Agent4!

10! B'5, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as B'5 isnamed as purported nominee/agent for irst 3ational Dank of Ariona onthe copy of the security instrument deed of trust4 assuming arguendothe copy is a true copy of the original4 in possession and control oflaintiff that is the sub%ect of this action!

1?! &5DC, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as &5DC isnamed as purported trustee for an unknown entity on a copy of an undatedallonge to a copy of the promissory note assuming arguendo it is a trueand correct copy of the original4 in possession and control of laintiff thatis the sub%ect of this action!

An unsubstantiated non-%udicial fraudclosure attempt was made by

+efendant/ Appellee, R$ Dank, absent any substantiated proof of claim, that was

repeatedly demanded by Appellant! 5aid attempt can be re#i#ed at any point in

24


25/29

time!2 urther support for Appellants bill can be found in the factual statements in

UU 1=-22 of the 5econd Amended Dill!

1=! laintiff possesses the right to demand the production of a bona fideclaim, supported with strict proof! ustice demands a #alid claim is

produced! An equity court, charged with the duty to do what is fair, %ustand right, must demand nothing less!?

18! Defore seeking relief from an equity court, laintiff ser#ed multiplepre-suit, e9tra%udicial notices and disco#ery demands on +efendants,their agents, principals, transferors, transferees, officers, assigns,ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or attorneys to produce a bona fideclaim ltf! B9! 1, 2, etc4!

1! +espite repeated good faith requests o#er the past ? years to allnamed +efendants four 74 separate demands4, their agents, principals,transferors, transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors,employees, and/or attorneys failed to ob%ect and failed to comply withsaid demand!

20! $he failure to pro#ide responses to any of the demands to produce abona fide claim, to include mandated state and federal disclosures,creates an actual contro#ersy and draws 5tanding and 'eal arty in)nterest into substantial question! 5ee generally Shields v.


26/29

is ri"e, b% its ver% structure, "ushes against our insistence u"on

mature dis"utes. That is, it contem"lates an ex ante

determination of rights that exists in some tension with

traditional notions of ri"eness.

21! laintiff will suffer irreparable harm, along with slander of her goodname, and slander of title to property, if a non-%udicial fraduclosure can

be carried out in the absence of a bona fide claim being produced!

22! laintiffs pre-suit 3otices and +emands are in compliance with$enn!'!C!! 'ules4 2>-2=, and principles of pre-complaint disco#eryseen in other states and applicable herein #ia $enn! B#id! 'ules4 201d4,202a4, and the F!5! Const! art )< sec! 1 full faith and credit clause6 $o

wit, a! Code 'ule 700?!8a4 :A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaintdisco#ery where the information sought is material and necessary to thefiling of the complaint and the disco#ery will not cause unreasonableannoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or e9pense to any personor party!;

III. CONCLUSION

Compelling production of the two 24 elements to support a genuine claim will

maintain a balance of the equities between the parties, maintain the status quo, and

pro#ide Appellant the rightful remedy that Appellant sought with clean hands, but was

denied in the trial court!

)t was re#ersible and plain error for the Court to ignore Appellant right to a

declaratory %udgment stating +efendants ha#e a non-delegable duty to pro#ide the

strict proof Appellant sought! Appellants suit is founded not only on common sense

and equity, but also by decisional law in the 5i9th Circuit and across the country in

other non-%udicial foreclosure states!

26


27/29

or the abo#e reasons for good cause, the appellate court should do what is fair,

%ust and equitable by re#ersing the trial courts decision and remand for further

proceedings!

+ated this JJJJday of JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ2017

'espectfully submitted,

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJBliabeth B! Crockett

2(


28/29

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

ursuant to >th Cir!'!?2a4=4c4, the undersigned certifies this brief complies with thetype-#olume limitations of >th Cir!'!?2a4=4D4!

1! BGCF5)


29/29

CERTIFICATE OF SER?ICE

), JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ, hereby certify that a copy of the

foregoing document was ser#ed #ia F55 irst Class ail, in a sealed en#elope on orabout this JJJJJ day of JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ, 2017 to the followingrecipients6

5$)$B5 R &A'D)5"3, C for&5DC Dank F5A, 3!A!/ "'$(A(B BBC$'"3)C 'B()5$'A$)"3 5V5$B5,)nc!, auren a9ton 'oberts D' 3o! 2@074701 Commerce 5treet, 5uite 8005un$rust laa

3ash#ille, $3! ?=21

DAOB', +"3B5"3, DBA'A3, CA+*B R DB'O"*)$X, !C! forF$FA " "A&A DA3OCourtney &! (ilmer D' 221?14aime ! +e'ensis D' 2=>4211 Commerce 5treet, 5uite 800

3ash#ille, $3! ?=201

*)5"3 R A55"C)A$B5, C forR$ DA3O CorporationBdward +! 'ussell D' 2?12>4Creekside Crossing )))8 Cadillac +ri#e, 5uite 120Drentwood, $3! ?=02=

) declare under penalty of per%ury under the laws of the Fnited 5tates ofAmerica that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge!

B9ecuted this JJJ day of JJJJJJJJ2017, at JJJJJJJJJJ County, $ennessee!

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJBliabeth B! Crockett

Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	todd-wetzelberger
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Declaratory Judgment Dismissal Appellate Brief 2014

Documents