7/30/2019 BAD FAITH

1/4

BAD FAITH

30. The Plaintiffs allegations of fraudulent assignments and bad faith stem from the after-the fact

assignment executed on February 8th, 2010, and Corrective Assignment of Security Deed filed with theDeKalb County, GA Clerk of Superior Court on January 4th, 2011.

31. Plaintiff specifically avers that a fraudulently created Assignment confers no rights at all, let alone theright to foreclose.

32. Indeed, O.C.G.A. 44-2-43 declares

Any person who: (1) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a decree of registration of title to any

land or interest therein; (2) knowingly offers in evidence any forged or fraudulent document in the

course of any proceedings with regard to registered lands or any interest therein; (3) makes or utters

any forged instrument of transfer or instrument of mortgage or any other paper, writing, or document

used in connection with any of the proceedings required for the registration of lands or the notation of

entries upon the register of titles; (4) steals or fraudulently conceals any owner's certificate, creditor'scertificate, or other certificate of title provided for under this article; (5) fraudulently alters, changes,

or mutilates any writing, instrument, document, record, registration, or register provided for under thisarticle; (6) makes any false oath or affidavit with respect to any matter or thing provided for in this

article; or (7) makes or knowingly uses any counterfeit of any certificate provided for by this article

shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more thanten years.

33. The February 8th, 2010 ASSIGNMENT OF NOTE AND SECURITY DEED filed by the Defendants

features the signature of known robo-signer - Jeffrey Stephan. (See EXHIBIT 2.)

34. The Defendants have acted in bad faith by initiating foreclosures on the Plaintiffs home with the fullknowledge that the purported assignment was signed by Jeffrey Stephan, who had by that time admitted

in a Florida deposition that he signed thousands of affidavits a month without personal knowledge, and

has made false statements to courts under oath in hundreds of cases.

35. Other depositions and court sanctions followed. (See EXHIBIT 3)

36. Ohio Judge, Margaret Russo, ordered GMAC to appear before her to provide proof of integrity of all

documents submittedin the foreclosure case US Bank, National Association as Trustee vs. James W.

Renfro. Russo made this requirement for US Bank and its servicerGMACM (GMAC MortgageCorporation) -- when they submitted documents executed by Jeffrey Stephan.

37. On October 27th, 2010, in the same case (US Bank National Association as Trustee vs. James W.

Renfro, et al.,) US Bank moved to withdraw the property from sale because GMAC Mortgage

Corporation (GMACM) discovered that verification irregularities may have occurred in connection

with the execution of certain affidavits used in the judicial foreclosure process. GMACM requests that theorder of sale be withdrawn until GMACM can confirm the accuracy of the affidavit supporting the

judgment in this matter

38. On January 19th, 2011 the Washington Post reported:

a. Ally Financial, one of the nation's largest lenders, said Tuesday that it is withdrawing all of itsforeclosures in Maryland that were approved by employee Jeffrey Stephan, the "robo-signer" who

7/30/2019 BAD FAITH

2/4

admitted he signed off on thousands of files every month with little or no review. The company, formerly

known as GMAC, said about 250 active cases signed by Stephan will be dismissed

39. The Defendants operated in bad faith by not verifying and instead submitting into the DeKalb County

Real Estate Record a document signed by Jeffrey Stephan, when they knew that hundreds of court

dismissals, foreclosure withdrawals had occurred in Florida, Maine, Ohio and Maryland prior to his

signature on the February 8th, 2010 ASSIGNMENT OF NOTE AND SECURITY DEED purporting toproperly assign the subject property to Defendant, BNYMT.

40. Though not binding in Georgia, the Defendants, aforementioned pattern of using Stephansfraudulently signed documents to establish title ownership where none exists, combined with the

defendants early refusal to validate their standing to the Plaintiff before commencing foreclosure in Julyof 2009, and their decision to execute and file an after-the-fact assignment which is fraudulent on its face,

leads the Plaintiff to these conclusions, and Plaintiff alleges:

a. The Jeffrey Stephan-signed ASSIGNMENT OF NOTE AND SECURITY DEED is consistent with the

thousands of other fraudulent documents he has signed and

b. Knowing this and in bad faith, the Defendants recorded it in the DeKalb County Real Estate Record tofraudulently vest title in the DefendantBNYMT, in order to justify the Defendants illegally collectingpayments from the Plaintiff, and wrongfully foreclosing on Plaintiff Madzimoyos home and property at

852 Brafferton Place, Stone Mountain, GA. 30083.

41. Georgias highest Court has spoken clearly about forged documents in Mortgage transactions inAurora Loan Services, LLC v. John MaCelray Veatch, ADMR., et al., Supreme Court of Georgia,

S10A1725 (decided March 18, 2011) A forged deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee [Cit.]. As

such, even a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of a forgery cannot acquire good title from a

grantee in a forged deed, or those holding under such a grantee, because the grantee has no title to

convey.

42. Any foreclosure of the security in the absence of a valid assignment is null and void ab initio. In reCummings, 173 B.R. 959, 962 (N.D. Ga. 1994). Any foreclosure conducted using fraudulently signed and

attested documents, which the Defendants knew or should have known to be fraudulently executed,

including deeds, transfers, assignments or any other document, that are missing the signature of an

unofficial witness and deeds missing the signature of an official witness (emphasis added) are defective.

Therefore, any wrongful foreclosures are void under O.C.G.A. 23-2-114.

43. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants subsequent filing of a January 4th, 2011 CORRECTIVEASSIGNMENT OF SECURITY DEED further demonstrates fraud and bad faith.

44. Although the authorized officers signers have changed, if the original signer (Jeffrey Stephan) ofthe February 8th, 2010 assignment lacked signing authority or signed fraudulently as the Plaintiff alleges,

then the document is a nullity, which is not correctable.

45. The Defendants assert: This Corrective Assignment of Security Deed is being recorded in order to

correct the corporate names of the Assignee and Assignor.This implies that these changes were to

address scriveners errors (spelling errors, typos, insignificant, and or agreed upon date errors, etc.,).(See EXHIBIT 4)

46. According to US Legal.Com:

7/30/2019 BAD FAITH

3/4

a. The doctrine of Scrivener's error is a legal principle which permits a typographical error in a written

contract to be corrected by parol evidence if the evidence is clear, convincing, and precise.However if

such correction affects property rights then it must be approved by those affected by it. (Emphasis

Added) Scrivener's error is an error due to a minor mistake or inadvertence and not one that occurs from

judicial reasoning or determination.

47. The Defendants CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF SECURITY DEED goes much farther thancorrecting the spelling of corporate names to naming different corporate entities. They change the

assignor from:

a. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association fka The Bank of New York Trust

Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as Trustee s/b/m to Bank One, N.A. as

Trustee s/b/m to The First National Bank of Chicago as Trustee to

b. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association fka The Bank of New York

Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as Trustee s/b/m to Bank One, N.A. as

Trustee s/b/m to The First National Bank of Chicago as Trustee for RAMP 2006RP2

48. The Plaintiff alleges that in this day of securitization of mortgages, trusts, pools, etc. that these are notthe same corporate entities. Neither The First National Bank of Chicago as Trustee or The First

National Bank of Chicago as Trusteefor RAMP 2006RP2 existed on Stephans February 8th , 2011

Assignment of Mortgage, or on either of the first two NOTICES OF FORECLOSURE mailed to the

Plaintiff.

49. Other key inconsistencies mark this Corrective Assignment fraudulent:

a. The July 25th, 2011 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE on Subject Property from McCurdy and Candler,

LLC, list yet another corporate entity as the creditor. It lists The Bank of NewYork Mellon Trust

Company, National Association fka The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor toJPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as Trustee forRAAC 2006 RP2 (See EXHIBIT #5)

50. According to the Corrective Assignment of Security Deed those purporting to hold legal title to thesubject property are not the ones listed on the Defendants July 25th, 2011 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE

mailed to the Plaintiff and published for public view.

51. This is in direct violation of the already sited GA Law regarding mailing notices under Powers of Sale

52. Other peculiarities support the fraudulent assignment allegation:

a. The mortgage note is assigned rather than endorsed from Party A to Party B. This is especiallycritical when correcting assignments of security deeds.

b. On the Stephan Assignment of February 8, 2010, the same signing officers or Vice Presidents(Stephan, Kerr, Turner) of a mortgage company or lender is also the Vice President or signing officerof many other entities or lenders in the chain of assignments or endorsements . This also applies to Susan

Turner as Authorized Officer on the January 4th, 2011- Corrected Assignment.

c. The return address on the Assignment or affidavit is to a third party providerin this case one of the

Defendants: McCurdy and Candler, LLC.

7/30/2019 BAD FAITH

4/4

d. Both assignments submitted by the Defendants came after foreclosure actions were commenced against

the plaintiff and years after the trust (RAMP 2006RP2 or RAAC2006RP2) were closed.

53. At the very least it will take discovery, depositions, and a trial to clarify these anomalies.