Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Jennifer Harwood, Pro per44263 W. McClelland DriveMaricopa, AZ 85138
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD,
Debtor
________________________________________
JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD, an individual
Plaintiff,
vs.CRESTAR MORTGAGE, a tradename; SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, a Virginia corporation; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, a Texas limited liability company; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a federally chartered corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, PERRY & SHAPIRO, L.L.P. an Arizona limited liability partnership;SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., an Arizona limited liability partnership; JASON P. SHERMAN, ESQ.; KRISTIN E.MATHERS, ESQ.; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1-100; BLACK CORPORATIONS 1-100; and WHITE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
CHAPTER 7
Case No.: 4:11-bk-34126-EWH
Adversary No.: ______________________
COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT AND VALIDITY OF LIEN, TO DISALLOW ANY SECURED CLAIM, DETERMINE SECURED STATUS OF LIEN, TILA VIOLATIONS, FRAUD, LIBEL, QUIET TITLE, DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT FREE OF SECURED STATUS, SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF.
COMES NOW, Debtor and Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and files this
COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT AND VALIDITY OF LIEN, TO DISALLOW ANY
SECURED CLAIM, DETERMINE SECURED STATUS OF LIEN, TILA VIOLATIONS, FRAUD, LIBEL, QUIET
TITLE, DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT,SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF and
in support thereof states as follows:
Complaint - 1
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
1. This adversary proceeding is brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §506 and
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001.
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409, Venue is proper as Plaintiff is a debtor in
this Court with standing to pursue this adversary proceeding.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding.
4. This is a core proceeding because it is an action to determine the
validity, extent and nature of a lien on property that was recorded with the Pinal
County Recorder as document nos. 2005-060065, 2007-056621, 2010-119871, 2011-077258,
and the allowance or disallowance of a claim filed by any creditor of the debtor with
respect to such recorded lien.
PARTIES
5. JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD, is an individual and a debtor in a Chapter 7
case before this Court. Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter
7 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 16, 2011.
6. Plaintiff is the recorded owner of real property (“Subject Property”)
located at 44263 W. McClelland Drive, Maricopa, AZ 85138.
7. Defendant, CRESTAR MORTGAGE is a Tradename duly registered with the
Arizona Secretary of State by SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, a Delaware corporation, with an
address of 901, Semmes Avenue, 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23224.
8. Defendant, SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. is registered with the Arizona
Corporation Commission as a Virginia foreign corporation with an address of 901,
Semmes Avenue, 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23224.
9. Defendant, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C., is registered with the Arizona
Corporation Commission as a Delaware foreign limited liability company with an address
of 2711 Centerville Road, #400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
10. Defendant, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, is a federally
chartered corporation with an address of 3500 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
20016.
Complaint - 2
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
11. Defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., is pending
approval with the Arizona Corporation Commission as a Delaware foreign corporation
with an address of 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190. At the time
the transactions took place, Plaintiff, upon information and belief, alleges that
said Defendant was a foreign corporation not authorized to transact business in
the State of Arizona under Arizona Revised Statutes and therefore, further
alleges that any assignments, transfers, conveyances purportedly made by MERS are
VOID as a matter of law.
12. Defendant, PERRY & SHAPIRO, L.L.P. an Arizona limited liability
partnership, is a law firm located at 3300 N. Central Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona
85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the principles and/or
employees of the firm under the direction of the principles orchestrated the creation
and execution of fraudulent assignments and substitutions of trustee and caused the
same to be recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder.
13. Defendant, SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., an Arizona limited
liability partnership; is a law firm located at 3300 N. Central Avenue, #2200,
Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the
principles and/or employees of the firm under the direction of the principles
orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments, notice of trustee’s
sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be recorded in the public
record via the Pinal County Recorder.
14. Defendant, JASON P. SHERMAN, ESQ., is an individual and an attorney at
the law firm of SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., located at 3300 N. Central
Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges
Complaint - 3
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 the Defendant orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments,
notice of trustee’s sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be
recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder.
15. Defendant, KRISTIN E.MATHERS, ESQ., is an individual and an attorney at
the law firm of SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., located at 3300 N. Central
Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments,
notice of trustee’s sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be
recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder.
16. Plaintiff hereby names all Defendants known and unknown that may be
claiming by, through or under such persons, any legal or equitable right, title,
estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property described herein as adverse to the
Plaintiff’s title thereto or which may constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the
Subject Property.
17. Unknown Defendants 1 through 100 are corporate entities and/or
individuals that may have a legal interest in the promissory note, deed of trust,
assignments or the real property which is the subject of this proceeding.
18. Unknown Defendants 1 through 100 are corporate entities and/or
individuals that may be responsible for the acts complained of herein.
FACTS
19. Plaintiff acquired title to the Subject Property by Special Warranty Deed
dated November 16, 2004 from First American Title Company, a California Corporation.
20. Plaintiff executed a promissory note dated May 5, 2005 payable to Crestar
Mortgage for the sum of $163,700.00. (Exhibit “A”).
Complaint - 4
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
21. Plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust dated May 13, 2005 conveying her
interest in the Subject Property to secure repayment of a Note. The Deed of Trust
names the lender as Crestar Mortgage, the Trustee as Michael A. Bosco, Jr. and “MERS”
as the beneficiary under the security instrument as nominee for Lender and Lender’s
successors and assigns. (Exhibit “B”)
22. A promissory note executed by the Plaintiff may or may not have been
sold into a secondary market or securitized. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend
this complaint upon the discovery of additional and relevant facts.
23. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated April 3, 2007 (Exhibit “C”) was
executed by Lorrie L. Pond as “Officer” of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. (“MERS”) and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder on May 11, 2007
as document no. 2007-056621. This document alleges to assign any interest MERS has as
beneficiary under the Deed of Trust to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Upon information and
belief, at the time of execution of this assignment, Lorrie L. Pond was not employee
or an officer of MERS or of Crestar Mortgage but worked in the foreclosure department
of SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. with her email address and telephone number being:
[email protected] and (804)319-4797. (Exhibit “D”). No instrument
demonstrating any authority that SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. may have to act on behalf of
Crestar Mortgage has been recorded in the public record or otherwise provided to the
Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff applied for a loan modification under President Obama’s Home
Affordability and Stability Plan (“HAMP”) on September 23, 2009 through SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. and was approved under the terms of the plan on or about June 22, 2010.
However, repeated attempts by Plaintiff to finalize the modification were ignored by
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. As a result, the Plaintiff, apparently along with thousands
of other homeowners across the nation, became suspicious about the exact nature of the
loan programs offered and the cause of the faltering economy.
Complaint - 5
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
25. On or about October 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Kentucky against
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and sister companies alleging loan modification fraud under
President Obama’s HAMP program.
26. On or about November 12, 2010, Plaintiff received a notice from SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. that “servicing” of the loan was being transferred to Nationstar
Mortgage, L.L.C.
27. Plaintiff sent qualified written requests to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. on or about November 30, 2010.
28. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated December 6, 2010 (Exhibit “E”) was
executed by Bryan Bly as “Vice-President” for MERS and recorded in the records of the
Pinal County Recorder on December 29, 2010 as document no. 2010-119871. This document
was notarized by Crystal Moore, Commission #DD 927242 in the State of Florida. Upon
information and belief, at the time of execution of this assignment, Bryan Bly was not
an employee or officer of MERS but worked as a “robo-signer” at Nationwide Title
Clearing along with Crystal Moore, the Notary Public. This document alleges that any
interest held by MERS in the Deed of Trust on the Subject Property was transferred to
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. Unfortunately, MERS already assigned its interest, if any
existed, in the previously recorded assignment.
29. Examples of Mr. Bly’s and Ms. Moore’s work which are unrelated to the
Subject Property are attached as Exhibit “F”.
30. On or about December 10, 2010, Plaintiff received correspondence from
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. that indicated that she was delinquent as of May 1, 2010
on her loan. This notice came as a surprise to Plaintiff because payments were being
paid timely to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. under the trial loan modification agreement.
31. On or about December 15, 2010, Plaintiff received correspondence from
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. that welcomed her to Nationstar as it was the new servicer
of the loan. Plaintiff immediately contacted Nationstar to inquire about the loan
Complaint - 6
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
modification and was told that its records did not include any information concerning
a loan modification or payments being made under a trial loan modification agreement.
32. On or about December 15, 2010, Plaintiff received a response from
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. indicating that the owner of the debt (i.e.: Note) was
“Fannie Mae.” (Exhibit “G”) “FANNIE MAE” was not a party to the original transaction
and has never been named in any document recorded in the records of the Pinal County
Recorder as having an interest in the Subject Property.
33. Plaintiff was provided incomplete, partial and inaccurate accountings of
loan payments by Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
34. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated December 22, 2010 (Exhibit “H”) was
executed by Whytnie Nordman as “Assistant Secretary” of Nationstar Mortgage in its
capacity as Attorney-in-fact for Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. and recorded in the records
of Pinal County Recorder on September 26, 2011 as document number 2011-077258. This
document was notarized by Brandon David Jones in the State of Texas on September 17th
but the year is unknown as it is not written in the notarization. This document
alleges that the beneficial interest in Deed of Trust on the Subject Property was
transferred from SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. No instrument
demonstrating any authority that Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. may have to act on behalf
of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. has been recorded in the public or otherwise provided to
the Plaintiff. This assignment allegedly is effective on a date that occurs between
the date the previous assignment was signed by Bryan Bly and the date if was recorded
by the Pinal County Recorder. Unfortunately again, this document is not effective if
the previous assignments were fraudulent, void or otherwise ineffective under the law.
35. A Notice of Substitution of Trustee which is undated but was executed by
Robert Walsh as Assistant Secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. in its capacity as
beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and recorded in the records of the Pinal County
Recorder on September 20, 2011 as document no. 2011-077259. (Exhibit “I”) This
document was notarized by Stephanie Denton in the State of Texas on March 3, 2011.
Complaint - 7
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
36. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that under the terms of
the Note, no power or authority was given to MERS to transfer, assign, or otherwise
pledge the promissory note to any party under any circumstances or conditions.
PLAINTIFF’S BANKRUPTCY FILING
37. Debtor (Plaintiff) filed a Chapter 7 petition and related schedules on
December 16, 2011.
38. Based upon the foregoing “Facts”, Debtor completed her petition and
schedules by listing her residence as an exempt asset on Schedule C.
39. Based upon the foregoing “Facts”, Debtor completed her petition and
schedules by listing “none” for creditors holding secured claims on Schedule D.
40. Based upon the foregoing “Facts”, Debtor completed her petition and
schedules by listing a promissory note payable to “unknown” for creditors holding
unsecured non-priority claims on Schedule F.
41. To a large extent, the same circumstances arise in this present case as
did In re Agard, 10- 77338, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip). Judge Robert E. Grossman’s opinion was set aside within the last few
weeks by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in Central Islip. Plaintiff’s position is
that only valid secured claims legally pass through the bankruptcy process and remain
attached to the collateral. Plaintiff prepared her petition and schedules reflecting
no valid secured claims. Defendants were provided notice of Plaintiff’s filing and
chose to not file an Objection to Discharge or a Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay but
instead avoid this Court by waiting until Plaintiff’s discharge was entered so the
fraud/theft could continue unobstructed. The country’s judiciary has produced rulings
and decisions on this varied subject matter that differ greatly. Meanwhile, thousands
of more Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure through little or no fault of
Complaint - 8
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
their own. Plaintiff’s position is that all her valid, unsecured debts were
discharged on April 12, 2012 and that no valid, secured liens existed at the time of
her bankruptcy filing. The Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that this Court
decide the issue on this case’s merits.
42. The first Meeting of Creditors was scheduled for March 2, 2012. The time
for objections to debtor’s discharge expired on April 4, 2012. No objections to
Debtor’s discharge as presented by Plaintiff in her petition and schedules were filed
by any of the Defendants.
43. This Court entered its Order of Discharge on April 12, 2012.
Allegations
44. Crestar Mortgage alleged that it was the originator of the Plaintiff’s
loan for the Subject Property when the facts reflect that Crestar Mortgage was only a
tradename used and registered by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Upon information and belief,
Plaintiff alleges that Crestor Mortgage was never a valid creditor of Plaintiff
because the funds came from another source that is unknown to Plaintiff and that any
conveyance of a beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust from Plaintiff to Crestar
Mortgage was induced by fraud and that any ownership interest Crestar Mortgage
received under the Promissory Note and/or Deed of Trust is void because a tradename is
not able to be a real party in interest to a contract as it is not a person,
corporation, partnership or otherwise and is therefore, void as a matter of law. On
the other hand, if a tradename is a permissible party under the law and is a valid
party to the Note and Deed of Trust then the Plaintiff’s indebtedness to this note
remains uncertain because the original note has not been seen since the signing and
its whereabouts or existence remains unknown.
45. Under Arizona law, the note and the mortgage are inseparable, with the
former being essential while the latter is “an incident”, and that an assignment of
the note carries the mortgage with it, “while an assignment of the latter [the
Complaint - 9
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
mortgage or deed of trust] alone is a nullity. The assignor of a deed of trust (MERS,
Crestar Mortgage, etc.) must own the note in order to assign the incident deed of
trust, so MERS and Crestar Mortgage are legally precluded from assigning the deed of
trust for want of ownership of the note, and cannot assign the note in any event as
those parties never owned it. MERS’ lack of ownership interest in any note is a matter
of decided case law not to mention based on a recorded stipulation of MERS’ own
lawyers in the MERS v. Nebraska Dept. of Finance decision. Due to the foregoing, upon
information and belief, the Assignment of Deed of Trust dated April 3, 2007 and
executed by Lorrie L. Pond as an “officer” on behalf of MERS to SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. is void as a matter of law as Lorrie L. Pond was not an officer of MERS but
merely an employee of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. at the time of the execution and
notarization of the document. A party may not assign to itself an interest owned by
another as it flies in the face of not only common sense but basic principles of law
that span the world. Furthermore, this assignment is invalid and void because MERS
was named in the Deed of Trust as a nominee of the lender – Crestar Mortgage. Crestar
Mortgage is not specifically identified as a tradename of any specific company, did
not actually lend any funds to the Plaintiff and thus, the Promissory Note and Deed of
Trust are invalid and violate true disclosure to the Borrower under the Truth In
Lending Act (“TILA”). In other words, since Crestar Mortgage was only a tradename, it
could not have been a party to a contract, it did not lend any funds to the Plaintiff
and accordingly, MERS has no legal authority as Crestar Mortgage’s “nominee” to assign
its interest to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiff further alleges that under Arizona
law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note and that at no time
did MERS or Crestar Mortgage have the original Note in its possession, hold the
negotiable paper in bearer form or have any legal ownership interest in the Note and
as a result, the preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust (Exhibit
“C”) was intended to conceal and deceive the public at large, and thus, is fraudulent
and VOID as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar
Complaint - 10
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
Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. held any legal interest in the Note that any
assignments recorded prior to this Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as
a matter of law and thus, failed to legally transfer any interest to SunTrust
Mortgage, L.L.C.
46. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust
dated December 6, 2010 and executed by Bryan Bly as Vice-President of MERS to
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. is void as a matter of law as Bryan Bly was not an officer
of MERS but merely an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing whose role at the company
was to falsify documents on behalf of financial institutions and Fannie Mae.
Furthermore, the signatures of Bryan Bly and the Notary Public, Crystal Moore, do not
comply with Florida law in that both parties failed to sign their complete names
instead executing the documents with their initials. Plaintiff further alleges that
under Arizona law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note and
that at no time did MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar
Mortgage, L.L.C. have the original Note in its possession, hold the negotiable paper
in bearer form or have any ownership interest in the Note and as a result, the
preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust was intended to conceal
and deceive the public at large, and thus is fraudulent and VOID as a matter of law.
Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. held an in interest in the Note that assignments recorded prior to this Corporate
Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as a matter of law and thus, failed to legally
transfer any interest to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. as no security attaches to wild
deed or fraudulent instruments.
47. Upon information and belief, the Assignment of Deed of Trust dated
September 17, 2011 and executed by Whytnie Nordman as Assistant Secretary of
Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C., in its capacity as attorney in fact for SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. is void as a matter of law (Texas law) as the notarization of the
document is incomplete in that the year was omitted from the Notary Public’s
Complaint - 11
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
attestation clause. Furthermore, this assignment appears to have been prepared and
recorded by the law firm of Shapiro, Van Ess & Sherman, L.L.P. without knowledge of
the preparation and recording of the assignment executed by Bryan Bly and serves only
to further cloud Plaintiff’s title and make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to
determine who is legally entitled to payment under the note. Plaintiff further alleges
that under Arizona law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note
and that at no time did MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar
Mortgage, L.L.C. have the original Note in its possession, hold the negotiable paper
in bearer form or have any ownership interest in the Note and as a result, the
preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust was intended to conceal
and deceive the public at large, and thus is fraudulent and VOID as a matter of law.
Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. held an in interest in the Note that assignments recorded prior to this
Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as a matter of law and thus, failed to legally
transfer any interest to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. as no
security attaches to a wild deed or fraudulent instruments.
48. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust or other document executed by MERS
and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder is void as it would be an
attempt to transfer a non-existent beneficial interest. MERS had no pecuniary
interest in the loan. MERS, who has no beneficial interest to assign and no pecuniary
interest in the promissory note, would have no legal authority to draft mortgage
assignments and substitutions of trustee. The Defendants and their agents commit
perjury in relation to their testimony. If the loan was securitized, Crestar Mortgage
was not the lender even if a tradename can be a party to a contract as originators of
those types of loans immediately and simultaneously securitize the notes. Servicers
or other parties that routinely declare the defaults of those loans are not in privity
with the lender. The true owner or beneficiary of the note have not declared a
default and usually no longer have an interest in the note. The pseudo-government
Complaint - 12
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
agencies that helped create MERS and the resulting messes are now under receivership,
have been bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer and are now owned, quite frankly by the very
Americans whose homes are being stolen.
49. The Plaintiff’s note and deed of trust, if valid and legally enforceable,
took divergent paths at the inception of the transaction and by the Defendants
continued perpetuation of fraud by creating and recording additional fraudulent
assignments, the note and deed of trust were married to that separation.
50. MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Nationstar Mortgage,
L.L.C. have never had a beneficial or pecuniary interest in the subject Note, have no
authority (agency or nominee) to convey an interest in the Note, have never been in
possession of the original Note and have no power under the law to transfer ownership
and any such attempts are void. Any loan that named MERS as beneficiary or the
lender’s nominee is at best, an unsecured debt. Only the beneficial owner of the
original Note or holders in due course would be able to collect on the unsecured debt.
51. Any individuals that executed and notarized forged documents and who were
employees of companies and/or law firms have committed fraud, perjury and forgery.
Claims for Relief
Declaratory Relief to Determine an Interest in Property
52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
53. Plaintiff alleges that at no time did Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. hold both the Plaintiff’s Note and Deed
of Trust.
54. Neither Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. nor Nationstar
Mortgage, L.L.C. has standing and the lien is void. Therefore, any claim of
Defendants should be deemed unsecured and the Deed of Trust void and/or satisfied.
Complaint - 13
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
55. The lien against the Subject Property evidenced by the Deed of Trust has
no value since it is wholly unsecured and as such, the Deed of Trust and all
subsequent assignments are null and void.
56. Plaintiff alleges that she holds an interest in the Subject Property free
and clear of any interest of the defendants based upon the legal principles set forth
herein.
57. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants with regard
to the validity, nature and extent of their ownership interests in the Property.
58. It is necessary for this Court to determine and declare rights and
obligations of the parties.
59. Under review by the Arizona Supreme Court are two cases involving these
very disputes. (John Hogan v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. (Case No. CV-1-0115) Therefore,
the issues brought to this Court by Plaintiff are representative of issues affecting
the public at large and may be assisted by continuing this instance case until a
ruling is issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. That the Court determines the nature and extent and validity of
Defendants’ interest in the Subject Property owned by the Plaintiff;
2. That the Court determines that the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note that
conveyed interests to Crestar Mortgage are void and unenforceable;
3. That the Court determines the amount and nature of any liens secured by
the Deed of Trust recorded against the Subject Property;
4. That the Court determines that the Deed of Trust is null and void;
5. That the Court determines that any liens against the Subject Property are
unsecured;
6. That the Court determines that at no time relevant hereto did Crestar
Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. hold both the
Note and Deed of Trust to the Subject Property.
Complaint - 14
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
7. That the Court determines that Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. do not having standing and any liens, assignments,
or claims are void.
8. That the Court determines that no legal and valid Trustee exists under
the Deed of Trust and therefore, no party has the power of sale by virtue of a
Trustee’s Deed sale and such action would constitute fraud.
9. That the Court determines that all Defendants mentioned herein
participated in fraud by causing to be created or by creating a falsified note and
deed of trust or processing falsified assignments of the Deed of Trust.
10. That the self-execution of any Substitution of Trustee or Assignments was
self-serving and constitutes forgery.
11. That the aforementioned conduct of the Defendants was intentional
misrepresentations, deceit, or concealment of material facts known to the Defendants
with the intention on the part of the Defendants to thereby deprive the Plaintiff of
property or legal rights or otherwise cause injury and was despicable conduct that
subjected the Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the
Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
12. That the conduct of the Defendants constitutes libel that tends to
defame, disparage, and injure Plaintiff in her business and reputation and has also
caused pain and suffering.
13. As a result of Defendants acts and omissions, Plaintiff has been injured
in an amount that is yet to be determined.
14. That the conduct of these Defendants as alleged herein was willful,
fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. As a result, Plaintiff requests an award of
punitive damages.
15. That the Court determines which recorded documents represent a cloud upon
the Subject Property and have the same stricken from the land records of Pinal County,
Arizona.
Complaint - 15
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
16. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day of April, 2012.
Plaintiff
By:_____________________________________ Jennifer Michele Harwood
Complaint - 16
