Depo of Brian White of National Star Mortgage

8/6/2019 Depo of Brian White of National Star Mortgage

1/27


2/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141120212223242500031 I N D E X2 DEPOSITION OF BRIAN WHITE PAGE3 Direct Examination by Mr. Wasylik 44 Cross-Examination by Ms. Balram 505 Redirect Examination by Mr. Wasylik 516 Certificate of Reporter 577 Deposition Errata Sheet 588 Certificate of Oath 619

1011 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS12 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE13 1 Affidavit of Lost Original Document 4714 2 66-Page Collection History 5515

1617181920212223242500041 The deposition of BRIAN WHITE was taken pursuant2 to Notice by counsel for the Defendant on Tuesday, June3 14, 2011, commencing at 2:51 p.m. at Esquire Deposition4 Solutions, 4927 Southfork Drive, Lakeland, Florida

5 33813. Said deposition was reported by Evelyn M.6 Adrean, RPR, FPR, Notary Public, State of Florida at7 Large.8 - - - - - - - - - -9 THEREUPON:

10 THE REPORTER: Raise your right hand, please.11 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you12 give today will be the truth, the whole truth and13 nothing but the truth?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 BRIAN WHITE,16 a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the17 whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and18 testified as follows:19 DIRECT EXAMINATION20 BY MR. WASYLIK:21 Q Good afternoon. We've briefly been introduced22 a moment ago. My name again is Mike Wasylik. I am the23 attorney for the defendant, Henry Redillo who is present24 here with me, and you here with your counsel. We are25 here today pursuant to a notice of rescheduled00051 deposition, the scheduling coordinated with your2 lawyers. You are here -- or we have requested the3 presence of a corporate representative for Nationstar4 Mortgage with the certain designated areas of knowledge

Page 2


3/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614115 with respect to this case. And you are here pursuant to6 that notice, I take it?7 A Yes.8 Q Can you please state your full name for the9 record.

10 A Brian White.11 Q And Mr. White, what is your employment?12 A What's my function?13 Q What is -- yes.14 A Or who do I work for?15 Q We'll start with what is your function.16 A I'm a default litigation -- default17 litigation.18 Q And is that your title?19 A Yes.20 Q And with who are you employed?21 A Nationstar Mortgage.22 Q And as a -- in the course of your duties in23 default litigation, what is your relationship to this24 particular file?25 A We own the file, we own the note.0006

1 Q By "we," Nationstar?2 A Nationstar owns it.3 Q Now, the deposition here today is unlike a4 deposition where I'd be taking the personal testimony of5 a particular witness. We've noticed a corporate6 representative to that, and we've asked that you be the7 witness with areas of knowledge that we've designated in8 our notice. We are actually taking the deposition of9 the corporate plaintiff in this case, and you are the

10 physical flesh and blood embodiment of that person. As11 such, when I asks questions, I'm not necessarily for12 questions that are related to your personal knowledge13 although we do expect that you have done the preparation14 necessary to be able to answer the question. I am15 asking for the knowledge and position of the corporate

16 plaintiff. Generally speaking when I ask you17 a question, I am going to be asking for the position,18 knowledge, information of the plaintiff, that being19 Nationstar. Do you understand that?20 A Yes. If I'm able to answer, then I will21 answer and do so.22 Q And with respect to any question that I ask23 you, if it's unclear whether I'm asking more the24 knowledge of the plaintiff or your individual knowledge,25 if it's a big issue at all to you, please let me know, I00071 will clarify.2 A Okay.3 Q And to that extent, if there's any question I4 ask you that's at all unclear or ambiguous, please let5 me know, I will clarify.6 A Okay.7 Q Okay? And I don't know if you've had your8 deposition taken before, we'll get into that in a9 moment. But today I'm going to ask you a series of

10 questions about the case, and you will answer hopefully11 to the best of your ability. And, you know, if at any12 time you need a break to talk to your lawyer, for13 personal comfort, for whatever reason, go ahead and let14 me know. This is not a water boarding session, we're15 just here to get information about the case.

Page 3


4/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141116 A That's fine.17 Q Okay? All right. Do you have any other18 questions about what we're going to undergo today?19 A No.20 Q All right. What is your specific connection21 to this mortgage loan that is the subject of this22 litigation?23 A Can you clarify that?24 Q Yes. Other than today's deposition, do you25 have any role in overseeing the mortgage loan that is00081 the subject of this litigation?2 A In a function -- clarify further, please.3 Q Any role at all.4 MS. BALRAM: Objection to the form of5 question. If you ask a specific question, he'd be6 able to give you a specific answer. It's kind of7 vague.8 BY MR. WASYLIK:9 Q Well, let's start with the day-to-day

10 function. What is your day-to-day involvement with this11 loan?

12 A Again, clarify the question.13 Q Let's go back. Let's go back and talk about14 your duties as in default litigation. What specifically15 are your duties?16 A Specifically, my duties entail that I attend17 at trial, I attend at depositions, I review the note,18 review the mortgage, review the figures, review --19 review the account in and of itself.20 Q Prior to receiving today's -- the notice of21 deposition for this deposition, had you done any review22 of this particular file?23 A Yes.24 Q And when was that?25 A When did you -- when did you send us notice or0009

1 on this?2 Q The original notice was approximately two3 months ago. It was April?4 MS. BALRAM: No. The notice that went out was5 on, I believe, the 9th of April. When I requested6 Brian to attend the deposition, is what --7 THE WITNESS: It was in April or --8 MS. BALRAM: No. Sorry, June.9 THE WITNESS: June, okay. So we -- let's see.

10 This was early June some time.11 BY MR. WASYLIK:12 Q Okay. Prior to that, did you have any13 involvement with this specific loan file at all?14 A No.15 Q Okay. Now, I see that you have a copy of the16 notice in front of you; is that correct?17 A Uh-huh.18 Q All right. The areas of knowledge that we've19 requested are set forth in that notice. No. 1 asks for20 a person of knowledge of the facts asserted in the21 pleadings. Are you the person for Nationstar who'd have22 the best knowledge of the facts asserted in the23 pleadings?24 A At this very moment, yes.25 Q Can you tell me what preparation you have done0010

Page 4


5/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614111 to answer questions related to the facts asserted in the2 pleadings?3 A I the pulled note, I pulled the mortgage, I4 pulled what documents are available to me, I have5 reviewed account histories, reviewed paid histories,6 went through the account in general.7 Q Did you review the complaint?8 A Yes, I did.9 Q Did you review any answer to the complaint?

10 A Not aware that I did.11 Q Did you review any other court paper with12 respect to No. 1?13 A More specifically?14 Q Okay. Did you -- besides the complaint, did15 you review any of the other pleadings that have been16 filed in this case?17 A More specifically what?18 Q Well, I've asked you as to the answer, and you19 said you don't remember. Okay. Have you reviewed any20 amended answer?21 THE WITNESS: Ria?22 MS. BALRAM: I'm sorry?

23 BY MR. WASYLIK:24 Q Did you --25 A I've told you what that I've reviewed. If00111 it's regarding an answer, to my knowledge I've not2 reviewed an answer. I am familiar with the complaint,3 I'm familiar with the outline of the status of the4 account.5 Q Okay. With respect to area of knowledge6 number 2, we've asked for a person with knowledge of the7 facts asserted in any affidavit submitted by the8 plaintiff. How did you prepare for today to answer9 questions about that area of knowledge?

10 A Again --11 MS. BALRAM: Object to the form. Specific

12 questions, please.13 BY MR. WASYLIK:14 Q Did you review any documents, specifically15 affidavits, with respect to -- I'm sorry, let me16 withdraw that. In order to prepare to answer questions17 about the facts asserted in affidavits submitted by the18 plaintiff, did you actually review any affidavits?19 A Affidavits, no. I didn't have interrogatories20 to review.21 Q I didn't ask you about interrogatories, I22 asked you about affidavits.23 A Right. Typically prior to depositions, I24 actually have something to review provided to my counsel25 with regard to what opposing counsel is prepared to ask00121 other than five points represented within the notice of2 deposition. I wasn't allotted very much to prepare for.3 Q I see. So when you received this notice of4 deposition and you saw that we were asking for a person5 who had knowledge of facts asserted in affidavits6 submitted by the plaintiff, which is Nationstar, did you7 determine that any investigation was necessary as to8 what facts were asserted in those affidavits?9 MS. BALRAM: Objection: Form. Please be

10 specific.11 MR. WASYLIK: All right. Let me be perfectly

Page 5


6/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141112 clear.13 THE WITNESS: Yes.14 MS. BALRAM: Please.15 THE WITNESS: Please.16 BY MR. WASYLIK:17 Q When I ask for a witness who has knowledge of18 facts asserted in the affidavit, normally the people who19 are responding to that have actually reviewed the20 affidavits that the plaintiff has submitted to the21 Court. And what you're telling me is, that hasn't22 happened in this case.23 MS. BALRAM: The affidavits that were24 submitted in this case, there were only three25 affidavits that have been submitted by plaintiff in00131 this case. Brian is able to testify as to the2 contents of the affidavits of indebtedness which was3 prepared according to their business records;4 correct?5 THE WITNESS: Correct.6 MS. BALRAM: The other two affidavits that7 were submitted were an affidavit of costs which was

8 prepared by plaintiff based on costs expended to9 file the foreclosure and affidavit as to attorneys

10 fees which is plaintiff's counsels cost. So Brian,11 you know, that was not given to him because that was12 prepared by plaintiff's counsel.13 BY MR. WASYLIK:14 Q I see. So you counsel did not provide you a15 counsel of the affidavit of indebtedness?16 A Not to my knowledge, no.17 Q And did not provide you a copy of the18 affidavit of costs?19 A Not to my knowledge, no.20 Q And did not provide you a copy of the21 affidavit of fees?22 A Not to my knowledge, no.

23 Q Okay. With respect to No. 3, we've asked for24 a representative with knowledge of facts supporting25 plaintiff's standing. Did you make any investigation00141 with respect to the plaintiff's standing?2 A Yes, I did.3 Q And tell me how you conducted that4 investigation?5 A Can you -- again, can you ask more6 specifically what you ware wanting to know from me?7 Q Absolutely. With respect to the investigation8 that you conducted as to the plaintiff's standing, did9 you have any conversations with anyone about the

10 plaintiff's standing?11 MS. BALRAM: Objection: Privileged.12 MR. WASYLIK: I'm not asking for contents of13 the conversation, I'm asking if the conversation14 existed.15 Q With that clarification, can you answer the16 question.17 A My attorney and I, we had our day-to-day18 conversations regarding the file, the case.19 Q Did you review any documents related to the20 plaintiff's standing?21 A Specifically which documents?22 Q Any documents.

Page 6


7/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141123 A Which documents -- which documents are you24 asking me about? If you ask me a specific question25 about a document, I can tell you if I reviewed it or00151 not. Ambiguous or vague documents, I can't tell you if2 I reviewed them or not.3 Q All right. If you needed to know whether or4 not the plaintiff has standing, what documents would you5 need to see?6 MS. BALRAM: Objection. Our witness has7 knowledge of the loan, the servicing of the loan.8 Questions of standing is a legal issue, and that's9 not my client's field of expertise.

10 MR. WASYLIK: Well again, we've asked for a11 person with knowledge of facts supporting12 plaintiff's standing. And the plaintiff has a duty13 to produce somebody who is properly prepared to14 answer questions about that.15 MS. BALRAM: If you ask a specific regarding,16 you know, exactly what you want to know about17 standing, he can do his best to answer the question.18 But if you ask about all documents regarding

19 standing, you know --20 MR. WASYLIK: Well, I'm asking --21 MS. BALRAM: Name a document.22 MR. WASYLIK: -- what he did to prepare in23 order to answer questions about standing. I presume24 that you prepared him for that.25 MS. BALRAM: Yes.00161 MR. WASYLIK: Okay. Well, we'll get into that2 in a moment, then.3 BY MR. WASYLIK:4 Q Now, with respect to No. 4, we've asked for a5 person with knowledge of the authenticity of any notes6 and assignments on which plaintiff relies. In the7 course of preparing to answer questions about that area

8 of knowledge, have you reviewed the note?9 A Yes.10 Q Have you reviewed any assignment?11 A Let me see what I have here. The assignment12 is -- since it is a Nationstar loan, the assignment is13 ours, it's never transferred.14 Q With respect to the note that you reviewed,15 can you tell me, was that the original note that you16 reviewed, or was it an electronic or a Xerox copy of the17 note?18 A It's a copy of the note.19 Q And from where did you obtain that copy?20 A My attorney provided me that note.21 Q Besides the copy of the note that your22 attorney provided, did you review to any other copies of23 the note?24 A The note was filed with the Court to my25 knowledge.00171 Q Besides the copy of the note that your2 attorney provided to you, did you review any other copy3 of the note?4 A No.5 Q The area of knowledge, number 5, we've asked6 for personal knowledge of the performance of any7 conditions precedent to acceleration in foreclosure. Do

Page 7


8/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614118 you know what conditions precedent were performed by the9 plaintiff?

10 A More specifically?11 Q I'm not asking you to list them, I'm asking if12 you -- do you know what conditions precedent were13 performed?14 A More specifically, what are you --15 Q Okay. I'm asking you if you know what acts16 the plaintiff took that were conditions precedent. If17 you don't know, feel free to let me know; if you do18 know, it's a yes or no question.19 A Condition precedent to what?20 Q To acceleration of foreclosure as provided in21 the notice.22 A Yes. We breached the account. We sent the23 defendant a breach letter, as well, letting him know24 that he was in default and when the default was due by25 to bring the account clear.00181 Q Do you have a copy of the complaint with you?2 A Yes, I do.3 Q I'm going to ask you to turn to that. The

4 first page of the complaint, Paragraph 3, says,5 plaintiff is the owner of said note. Can you tell me6 whether that statement is true?7 A It is true.8 Q How do you know it is true?9 A Because the note indicates that Centex Home

10 Equity Company is listed on the note.11 Q So the basis of your knowledge that the12 plaintiff is the owner of the note is the copy of the13 note that you reviewed that was provided to you by14 counsel?15 A No. Nationstar Mortgage is Centex.16 Q Okay. And you know that -- well, let me17 rephrase that. You a moment ago testified that the note18 says that Centex is the original lender on the note?

19 A Correct. They're one in the same.20 Q Right. And that Centex and Nationstar are the21 same?22 A That's right.23 Q Okay. So far I understand you. The note that24 you reviewed that bears the name of Centex is the25 photocopy that your counsel provided to you; correct?00191 A That's right.2 Q Okay. So your testimony today is not based on3 the records of Nationstar, but is it based on the4 records provided to you by counsel?5 A Ask that question again?6 Q The testimony that you have just given is7 based upon not the records of Nationstar, put based upon8 the records that were provided to you by counsel?9 A More specifically --

10 MS. BALRAM: Object to form.11 BY MR. WASYLIK:12 Q What part of that don't you understand, so13 that I can help you -- help rephase the question?14 A Ask the question again more -- it's a15 little -- it's a little ambiguous so ask it --16 Q All right. You've testified just a moment ago17 that the note has the name of Centex on it. And I'm18 assuming by that you mean -- well, let me clarify that.

Page 8


9/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141119 Are you referring to Centex Home Equity Company, LLC?20 A Yes, I am.21 Q And when I say "Centex," that's what we're22 talking about, we can agree on that?23 A That's fine.24 Q Okay. You testified a moment ago that the25 reason you know that the plaintiff, Nationstar, owns the00201 note --2 A Uh-huh.3 Q -- is because the copy of the note that you4 reviewed had Centex as the payee; is that correct?5 A That's right. And because we are now --6 Centex is now merged with Nationstar. Nationstar is7 Centex, Centex is Nationstar.8 Q I see. With respect to that information, in9 order for that -- in order for the plaintiff to own the

10 note, you would have to be correct the note has Centex11 on it; is that right?12 A The note does have Centex on it.13 Q And the reason you know that the note has14 Centex on it is because you've reviewed a photocopy of

15 the note provided by your counsel?16 A I reviewed a copy of note which is filed with17 the Court which has Centex on it, which was the original18 document that the defendant signed at origination.19 Q Okay. You said a lot of things there, and I20 want to unpack them one at a time. Earlier today, just21 a few minutes ago, you testified that the only copy of22 the note you reviewed was a photocopy of the note23 provided to you by your counsel. Is that answer still24 correct?25 A That answer is correct, too.00211 Q And you've reviewed no other copy of the note?2 A I have not.3 Q Okay. You've never seen the original note?

4 A I've not seen the original note, no.5 Q You weren't present at the closing?6 A No.7 Q So other than the photocopy of the note that8 your counsel provided to you, there is no other document9 that you've reviewed that says that Centex is the payee

10 on the original note. It's a yes or no question.11 A I believe I've already answered that question.12 The name on the note is Centex.13 Q Okay. The name on the photocopy that you14 reviewed is Centex?15 MS. BALRAM: Objection: Asked and answered16 several times now.17 MR. WASYLIK: All right.18 BY MR. WASYLIK:19 Q Is that correct?20 A The name on the note is Centex.21 Q Well, I think we've established that you're22 talking about the photocopy of the note, so let me23 direct you to paragraph No. 4 of the complaint. It says24 the original promissory note was lost or destroyed25 subsequent to the plaintiff's acquisition thereof. The00221 exact time and manner of said loss or destruction being2 unknown to plaintiff. When you reviewed the complaint,3 sir, did you determine whether or not paragraph 4 is

Page 9


10/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614114 true or false?5 MS. BALRAM: Objection. Count 1 is a pleading6 in the alternative. We've established that the7 original note has been filed with the Court. So8 Count 1 is void and can be dropped from this action.9 MR. WASYLIK: Okay. Have you dropped that

10 count?11 MS. BALRAM: We have not. Usually, it's done12 at the summary judgment.13 MR. WASYLIK: Well --14 MS. BALRAM: It's moot, so --15 MR. WASYLIK: It's not moot because you16 haven't amended your complaint, you haven't dropped17 it. So I'm entitled to ask a question about it.18 And if you're instructing your witness not to19 answer, please do that on the record; otherwise, he20 can answer the question.21 BY MR. WASYLIK:22 Q When you reviewed the complaint, sir, did you23 determine whether or not paragraph 4 was true or false?24 A No. I didn't need to, because I had the note.25 Q You had the original note?

00231 A We've already established that I didn't have2 the original note.3 Q Paragraph 4 says the original promissory note4 was lost or destroyed. Did you make any investigation5 as to whether or not that was true?6 A No.7 Q As you sit here today, do you know whether the8 original promissory note was lost or destroyed?9 MS. BALRAM: Asked and answered. He's already

10 established that it's been filed with the Court.11 MR. WASYLIK: No, you have testified to that12 effect. I am asking him what he knows as the13 corporate plaintiff.14 A And again, I've answered no, I don't know if

15 it's been lost or destroyed. I have -- I have a note16 that has Centex on it with defendant's signature.17 BY MR. WASYLIK:18 Q You have a photocopy of the note?19 A I have the note here --20 Q That is not the original note?21 A -- provided to me my attorney. I've already22 established that this is not the original note.23 Q So you keep saying you have the note. What24 you have is a photocopy of the note. And so you25 understand that there's a difference between the two, do00241 you?2 A Yes, I do.3 Q Okay.4 THE WITNESS: Off the record, if we can lay5 the ground of respect, you to my attorney, you to6 me, and vice versa.7 MR. WASYLIK: I have treated you with respect,8 sir, and I ask that you treat me with the same.9 THE WITNESS: I will continue to do so.

10 MR. WASYLIK: Thank you.11 BY MR. WASYLIK:12 Q What I will ask you again is: Not whether you13 made an investigation of whether a photocopy of the note14 was in your possession, but whether -- and I understand

Page 10


11/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141115 you didn't make an investigation in to paragraph 4. But16 other than the investigation, is there any other basis17 that you have of knowledge whether or not Paragraph 418 where it says the original note was lost or destroyed,19 whether or not that's true?20 A Well, it doesn't say original note, it says21 promissory note.22 Q Paragraph 4 says the original promissory23 note --24 A My apologies.25 Q -- was lost or destroyed?00251 A My apologies.2 Q Okay.3 A And again my answer is, I didn't investigate4 that.5 Q And because you didn't investigate that, you6 don't have knowledge of it?7 A I have a note provided to me by my attorney.8 Q Okay. My question -- let me rephrase my9 question, because I think that's the source of your

10 confusion.

11 A I'm not confused, I'm answering the question12 as I know it to be.13 Q I asked you first whether you did an14 investigation as to that paragraph, and you told me no;15 then I asked you whether you had knowledge of the truth16 of the paragraph. Now, if you made no investigation, it17 is very likely that your answer is going to be no, but18 you may have independent knowledge of that. So that's19 what I'm trying to get at here. Do you have any other20 knowledge as to the truth of that paragraph?21 A No.22 Q Paragraph 5 says the plaintiff was in23 possession of the promissory note and was entitled to24 enforce it when loss of possession occurred. Let me25 take the first half of that. Do you know whether

00261 plaintiff was ever in possession of the original2 promissory note?3 A To my knowledge, we were.4 Q How do you have that knowledge?5 A This was -- we -- Centex which is now6 Nationstar made the loan.7 Q Correct.8 A So therefore, we would have the original.9 Q All right. My question is not whether you

10 would have had the original, my question is whether you11 did have the original. And if you're making an12 inference, that's fine, let me know that. But I'm13 asking what you do know?14 A It's an inference.15 Q Besides the inference, do you have any actual16 knowledge of whether Nationstar, whether it's Centex or17 Nationstar in name had possession of the note at any18 time?19 A I wasn't at origination, so I can't answer20 that.21 Q Your counsel has asserted that there is an22 original note somewhere that's been filed with the Court23 or is going be filed with the court. Do you have any24 knowledge as to that?25 A Ask that question again to me.

Page 11


12/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141100271 Q Your counsel has asserted that there's an2 original note somewhere that is filed with the Court or3 is going to be filed with the Court. Do you know4 whether that is true or false?5 A Where the note is, or whether they're going to6 file it?7 Q Whether there's an original note that either8 has been filed or will be filed?9 A To my knowledge, the original note has been

10 filed.11 Q How do you know that?12 A Again, because Centex made the note, and13 because it -- and because in conversations with my14 attorney, the note has been filed with the court.15 Q I see. Let's move to Count 2, please. With16 respect to Paragraph 11, there are a number of facts17 asserted in there. Did you make investigation into any18 of the facts asserted in Paragraph 11 related to the19 execution and delivery of note?20 MS. BALRAM: Objection to form. Can you be21 more specific.

22 BY MR. WASYLIK:23 Q Was there any single fact in Paragraph 11 that24 you investigated?25 A Yes. I looked at the mortgage, and I looked00281 at the note.2 Q Is there any part of Paragraph 11 -- I'm going3 to withdraw. Paragraph 12, where it says Plaintiff is4 the owner of said note, you've testified that's because5 the note was made to Centex which is Nationstar. Is6 there any other basis for asserting that?7 A No.8 Q Has the note ever been endorsed to any third9 party?

10 A Not to my knowledge, no.

11 Q Has the note ever been transferred to any12 third party?13 A Not to my knowledge, no.14 Q Is there any way you could tell if it had15 been?16 A The mortgage has not been or the note has not17 been transferred. It's still -- it's still with18 Nationstar.19 Q Paragraph 14 asserts that there's been no20 payment on the note since August 1st of 2007. Did you21 determine whether or not that is true?22 A I did.23 Q And what was your conclusion?24 A That would be correct.25 Q How did you make that determination?00291 A I reviewed the account.2 Q Specifically what do you mean by you "reviewed3 the account"?4 A I looked at pay history, I looked at the last5 payment made, I reviewed the notes of the account.6 Q All of those being business records of the7 plaintiff?8 A That is correct.9 Q Is the plaintiff servicing its own loan?

10 A We are the owner of the note, so yes.Page 12


13/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141111 Q No one else is servicing it for the plaintiff?12 A No.13 Q Has anyone else ever serviced this loan?14 A Not to my knowledge, no.15 Q Paragraph 18 asserts that there's a John Doe16 and a Jane Doe who are unknown tenants who might be in17 possession of the subject property. Do you see that18 paragraph?19 A I do.20 Q Did you make any determination whether or not21 there's unknown tenants in the property?22 A No.23 Q Do you know if there are any costs24 attributable to attempting to serve John Doe and Jane25 Doe?00301 A Because I didn't see the -- what's the word2 I'm looking for --3 MS. BALRAM: The costs.4 A There you go. Because I didn't see the amount5 of indebtedness as far as the costs. The answer is no,6 I didn't. I can't attest to.

7 Q All right. Can you tell me, sir, exhibits to8 the complaint, what exhibits are attached to the9 complaint you reviewed?

10 A I have -- again, I have reviewed the note and11 the mortgage and the account history and the pay history12 and any documents subsequent as far as with -- that's13 within my purview.14 Q Let me rephrase the question. The complaint15 purports to attach at least one exhibit. Specifically,16 I'll refer you to Paragraph 11 where it says a copy of17 the mortgage is attached hereto and made a part hereof.18 And that's the last sentence in the paragraph.19 A Okay.20 Q When you reviewed the complaint, did you21 review any attachments to the complaint?

22 A I have reviewed the mortgage.23 Q Okay. And a copy of the complaint that you24 reviewed had the mortgage attached to it?25 A It does.00311 Q Was there any other exhibit attached to the2 complaint?3 A Not to my knowledge.4 Q The copy of the complaint that you reviewed,5 where did you obtain that?6 A From my attorney.7 Q You did not obtain it from Nationstar's own8 records?9 A The complaint would come from my attorney. So

10 it would come from my attorney.11 Q The answer is no, it didn't come from12 Nationstar's records?13 A No, it did not.14 Q And you've testified that you did not review15 any answer filed by the defendant?16 A Correct.17 Q So you did not review any of the affirmative18 defenses contained in that answer?19 A That is correct.20 Q And you did not review any of the denials21 contained in that answer?

Page 13


14/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141122 A That is correct.23 Q And you would not, then, be able to provide24 testimony as to the truth of facts for any of the25 defenses raised in that answer?00321 MS. BALRAM: Object to form. If you ask a2 specific question and he has the knowledge, he would3 be able to testify to that.4 MR. WASYLIK: Okay.5 BY MR. WASYLIK:6 Q Did you understand my question?7 A I did.8 Q Can you answer it?9 A I would concur with my attorney that if you

10 ask me a specific question, I can more than likely11 answer it.12 Q The question is whether you have knowledge of13 any fact related to any affirmative defense raised by14 the defendant?15 A I have not reviewed the affirmative defenses.16 Q Okay. So you do not know whether you have17 knowledge of those facts?

18 A If you can ask me a specific question, I can19 answer it.20 Q I'm asking you about the affirmative defenses21 in the answer.22 MS. BALRAM: Objection. He's already stated23 that he has not reviewed the answer in affirmative24 defenses, so unless you specify exactly what you25 want to know, he's not going to be able to answer00331 it.2 MR. WASYLIK: I'm just trying to determine --3 MS. BALRAM: I'm just trying to keep going.4 MR. WASYLIK: -- what the extent this witness'5 knowledge is. I'm sorry?6 MS. BALRAM: I'm sorry.

7 MR. WASYLIK: I didn't --8 MS. BALRAM: I was just going to say I'm just9 trying to keep this moving because he's already

10 answered and he's already said that he has not11 reviewed the answer in affirmative defenses,12 therefore he wouldn't know what was raised in those13 affirmative defenses. However, if it's something14 pertaining to the servicing of the mortgage, then,15 you know, if it's within his knowledge he'd be able16 to answer if you ask a specific question.17 MR. WASYLIK: Well, I think we've already18 established that you haven't reviewed all the19 pleadings despite our request, so I'll move on.20 BY MR. WASYLIK:21 Q With respect to the affidavit of indebtedness,22 did you seek with a person who signed that affidavit?23 A I've not seen any affidavits.24 MR. WASYLIK: Counsel, I'll just tell you now25 I think that the -- I think that the plaintiff has00341 failed to do its job in producing a witness that has2 knowledge of the areas of knowledge requested.3 Obviously, Mr. White is knowledgeable about the file4 generally, but when a witness hasn't reviewed any5 affidavit when we've asked for a witness with6 knowledge of the fact asserted in the affidavit, I

Page 14


15/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614117 do not think that you have complied with the notice.8 And I will tell you now that we are probably going9 to seek judicial review of that question. Without

10 waiving that, I'm going to continue.11 BY MR. WASYLIK:12 Q You have broadly said you've not reviewed any13 affidavits. I'm going to ask you a I specific question14 about a specific affidavit, and you can tell me if you15 can answer it, if you can answer it or not. Did you16 have an opportunity to review a document entitled17 Affidavit of Lost Original Document?18 A No. To my knowledge, the -- depending on what19 document you're referring to, to my knowledge, the20 document's not lost.21 Q Were you aware that the plaintiff prepared and22 executed an affidavit that said that the note, the23 original note, was lost or destroyed?24 A No.25 Q With respect to area of knowledge No. 4,00351 knowledge of the authenticity of the notes --2 A On which count?

3 Q -- on which plaintiff relies. Area of4 knowledge No. 4 with respect to the amended notice. The5 amended notice is first page --6 A Okay.7 Q -- in your packet there. When I use the8 phrase "authenticity of any notes," do you understand9 what that means?

10 A Yes.11 Q Did you make any determination as to whether12 the note that plaintiff relies on was or was not13 authentic?14 A Yes.15 Q How did you make that determination?16 A Through discussions with my counsel.17 Q Are there any records of the plaintiff that

18 would show that the note on which the plaintiff relies19 is authentic?20 A Are there any records?21 Q Yes.22 A I can't answer that.23 Q Let me ask you this: Does the plaintiff24 retain a copy of the note in its own records?25 A To my knowledge, yes.00361 Q You did not review that copy, though?2 A That is kept in a -- off site, and it takes a3 while to get. By the time that I received notice of4 deposition, there was not time to have that ordered and5 delivered to me in my office.6 Q The copy is kept off site?7 A The documents are kept off site.8 Q Which documents are you referring to?9 A What was your question to me?

10 Q My question to you is whether or not there are11 any records that the plaintiff as to authenticity of12 note and you answered --13 A The records are kept off site.14 Q Does the plaintiff retain any electronic15 records like images of notes?16 A I reviewed for those images, and they were not17 there.

Page 15


16/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141118 Q Does the plaintiff retain any photocopies of19 the notes?20 A Those would be images that you've just21 referred to.22 Q So when you say you reviewed for images and23 they were not there, you mean you reviewed for24 electronic images and also for photocopies?25 A I reviewed for any images able, any images00371 available.2 Q And let me make sure I understand, then, what3 your testimony is. When you reviewed for available4 images in the plaintiffs records, you found that there5 were no images in the plaintiff's records of the note?6 A There were no images available for my review.7 It does not mean that they're not there, it means that I8 just can't see them.9 Q Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Can you

10 please explain to me what it means when you say they11 were not available for your review?12 A Sure. When I access the system, they weren't13 there for my review, they -- they weren't there for my

14 review. And I didn't have time to request them, it15 would take too long. I inquired about them. By the16 time that I was able to get them, I would already be in17 Florida, so therefore I could not get them in time to18 review them.19 Q All right. Would it be correct to say that20 the plaintiff might have photocopies or electronic21 images of the note that were beyond your access level,22 in other words, that you didn't have permission to23 review?24 MS. BALRAM: Objection to the form of the25 question. Brian's already testified that he has00381 access to the entire loan file.2 BY MR. WASYLIK:

3 Q Well let's start with that, then. If the4 plaintiff had a photocopy or an electronic image of this5 note, would it be in the loan file that you have access6 to?7 A Yes.8 Q Okay. And so when you reviewed the loan file9 and found that there was no photocopy or electronic

10 image of the note, would it be fair to say that the11 plaintiff, then, does not have a copy, either a12 photocopy or an electronic image of that document in its13 records?14 A It would not be fair to say.15 Q You have access to the entire file?16 A Yes.17 Q They weren't there when you looked for them?18 A No.19 Q Okay.20 A That does not mean that they're not there,21 just means that when I accessed the record, it -- they22 were not there. And again, our documents are kept off23 site. And by the time that I could get the file, the24 servicing file or the origination file, it would already25 be too late as I would be in Florida at this deposition.00391 Q I see. There are paper copies kept off site?2 A Our files are kept off site, Nationstar,

Page 16


17/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614113 Centex files are kept off site.4 Q Are they paper files or electronic files?5 A It's the entire origination file. Their6 servicing file.7 Q And what form are those in? Are they8 something you can pull up on a computer screen, or are9 they physically paper files?

10 A They're in a warehouse.11 Q Do you know the answer to my question?12 A They're in a box, they're in a file, they're13 in a warehouse.14 Q What is it box, is it paper, is it a computer15 disk, what is it?16 MS. BALRAM: Objection. Brian' s already17 testified that he didn't get the document, so he has18 no idea what's in there.19 BY MR. WASYLIK:20 Q There's a document in a box in a warehouse21 somewhere, and you don't know if it's a paper or22 electronic document; is that a correct statement of your23 testimony?24 A To my knowledge, it's paper.

25 Q Okay. That's was the -- what I was asking00401 you.2 A The file is paper in a box in a warehouse.3 Q Thank you.4 A We've established that it wasn't electronic,5 or I could pull it up.6 Q And the only reason that you didn't have7 access to what was in the box is because you didn't have8 time to physically retrieve it or have the retrieved for9 you?

10 A That's correct.11 Q So you don't know what's in that box?12 A I'm aware of what's in the file.13 MR. WASYLIK: And Counsel, again I'm going to

14 say that I think there's a problem here, that we've15 asked for a witness who's, you know, got certain16 areas of knowledge. I would think that reviewing17 the records that are in the possession of the18 plaintiff is going to be something that's part of19 your duty to do. But again, I think we'll probably20 have to take that up with the Court.21 MS. BALRAM: The entire origination file was22 copied and produced to Counsel. I don't know if it23 was yourself or prior counsel. It was produced, so24 at one point, that file was copied in its entirety25 and produced over to defense counsel.00411 MR. WASYLIK: But not produced to the witness2 whose deposition I'm taking today.3 MS. BALRAM: I mean, obviously I cannot4 testify for Brian. But Brian, the response to5 plaintiff's request for production is what you6 reviewed earlier. But no, it was not produced prior7 to today --8 MR. WASYLIK: All right.9 MS. BALRAM: -- to the witness.

10 BY MR. WASYLIK:11 Q Let's talk about the 5th area of knowledge,12 please. You are -- strike that. Earlier I asked you13 about the performance and conditions precedent, and you

Page 17


18/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141114 made a reference to a breach letter. Do you have a copy15 of that breach letter?16 A I believe my attorney has that copy.17 Q You reviewed it?18 A Yes.19 Q Can you please describe for me what that20 breach letter says?21 A The breach letter typically is -- lists the22 amount of default, the date of default, when the23 acceleration is -- to clear the default is due by, and24 it goes to the address of record.25 Q And the breach letter you reviewed, this was a00421 photocopy provided to you by your counsel?2 A Yes.3 Q Did you review any other breach letter?4 A No.5 Q When was the breach letter sent?6 A Do you have the breach letter, and I can tell7 you when it was sent.8 Q I'm looking for my copy. But I guess if you9 needed to know when the breach letter was sent, how

10 would you find out?11 A It would be in the top left-hand corner of the12 breach letter.13 Q So the date of the breach letter itself?14 A Right. Or it would be in our system which15 would indicate when we breached the account.16 Q Did you determine whether or not the breach17 letter was actually sent?18 A The breach letter that I reviewed indicated19 that it was sent.20 Q And how did it make that indication?21 A By the mailing address on the breach letter.22 Q Okay. So there was a date and an address, and23 based on that you've concluded that it was, in fact,24 sent?

25 A Yes.00431 Q Is there any other log or record that shows2 that that document was mailed?3 A I have a date of breach which typically4 indicates that we at that time sent out a breach letter.5 Q Okay. Was there any postage incurred for6 mailing the letter?7 A I don't know that.8 Q No postage reflected in the affidavits of9 cost -- I'm sorry, I'll withdraw that --

10 MS. BALRAM: Objection.11 Q -- you said you didn't review the affidavit of12 cost. In your review of the loan file, was there any13 cost reflected for the postage of mailing default14 letter?15 A I haven't reviewed the affidavit of cost.16 Q When you reviewed the loan file, were costs17 included in the document reviewed?18 A Fees and costs, what, judgment figures, what?19 Q Costs. The expenses that you've incurred in20 servicing the loan?21 A To my knowledge, yes.22 Q And you reviewed those cost figures?23 A I reviewed them in our system, what the unpaid24 principal balance would be.

Page 18


19/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141125 Q I see. You did not, then, review a specific00441 breakdown of costs?2 A I believe that would refer back to affidavits3 which I've indicated I have not reviewed.4 Q Well, I'm not asking about the affidavits, I'm5 asking about the records that Nationstar had that you6 reviewed. Or let me -- I'm sorry, you said you didn't7 review Nationstar's record. Let me rephase that.8 A No. I didn't say that.9 MS. BALRAM: Objection.

10 MR. WASYLIK: All right. Let me rephrase.11 BY MR. WASYLIK:12 Q Did you review any documents in preparation13 for today that showed a breakdown of the costs that14 Nationstar has incurred in servicing the loan?15 A More specifically, which costs are looking16 for?17 Q Well specifically, I'm asking about cost of18 postage of mailing the default letter?19 A Right. And I've answered that I can't answer20 that.

21 Q When you reviewed the breach letter itself,22 were you aware of any contractual obligations as to its23 contents?24 MS. BALRAM: Objection. What specifically are25 you asking? What specific --00451 MR. WASYLIK: Well, I'm allowed to ask2 nonspecific questions.3 MS. BALRAM: Yes.4 MR. WASYLIK: Okay.5 MS. BALRAM: I object to the form of the6 question.7 BY MR. WASYLIK:8 Q Can you understand the question?9 A No, honestly.

10 Q Good. I'll rephrase. Are you aware of any11 requirements, any information that is required to be12 contained in the breach letter?13 A I don't write the breach letter, so that's not14 within my purview to know what verbiage should be there.15 I'm not an attorney.16 Q Okay. Assume for a moment that the mortgage17 contract, the mortgage itself, the security interest,18 that 20-something page paper that's attached to the19 complaint that you reviewed, lists certain specific20 items that are required to be in a notice of default.21 Would you know whether or not those items are in the22 breach letter or not?23 A Again, I'm not an attorney, and I can't tell24 you what is required to be in the breach letter.25 Q I'm not asking you what can -- I'm asking00461 whether you would know. So would it be fair to say your2 answer to that question is no?3 A I'm not required to know what is in the breach4 letter or as far as what -- how it's made up, what --5 how it should be promulgated, what verbiage should be6 there, specifically outside of dates and when it was7 sent and address.8 Q Because you're not required to know that,9 would it be fair to say that you don't know that?

Page 19


20/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141110 A It's not within my scope to know that.11 Q Okay. And so you don't. There's nothing12 wrong with something you don't, I just want to know13 whether you do or you don't.14 MS. BALRAM: You've asked and he's answered.15 MR. WASYLIK: No. He's evading my question,16 and I'm trying to ask very specific questions.17 THE WITNESS: I'm not evading, I'm answering18 you -- I feel a little badgered, but I am doing my19 best to answer your questions, sir.20 BY MR. WASYLIK:21 Q All right. I had asked you whether you do22 know, you have told me you're not required to know, and23 you've told me it's outside your scope. I am asking you24 a simple yes or no question. Do you know?25 A Do I know what words should be in that breach00471 letter, no.2 Q Thank you. Where is your physical office?3 A Physical office is 350 Highland Drive,4 Lewisville, Texas.5 Q Is that Betton County?

6 A Betton?7 Q Benton?8 A Denton?9 Q Denton County?

10 A Denton, yes.11 Q Denton County, sorry.12 A That's okay.13 Q I'm going to give you a document here. And I14 understand that you've not reviewed it, but I'm going15 to -- it is an affidavit that the plaintiff has16 submitted to us.17 A Are you going to make it an exhibit?18 Q I will in just a moment. First I want you to19 take a look at it.20 MR. WASYLIK: Could you mark this, please, as

21 Defendant's 1.22 BY MR. WASYLIK:23 Q Do you see the name of the person who signed24 this affidavit?25 A Yes.00481 Q What I've handed you is a document entitled2 Affidavit of Lost Original Document. The name there3 appears -- it's Sherry, and I can't read the last name.4 Do you know the last name?5 A I do.6 Q Is this a person that you know?7 A Yes.8 Q Can you spell the name for me since it's kind9 of illegible?

10 A No, I cannot. No.11 Q Do you know how to say it?12 A Sumerauer.13 Q So it appears to be S-u-m-e-r-a-u-e-r.14 A Right.15 Q Okay. How do you know Ms. Sumerauer?16 A Yes.17 Q How do you know her?18 A She's in the foreclosure department.19 Q Would she have had access to the records20 relating to this loan file?

Page 20


21/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141121 MS. BALRAM: Objection. Brian isn't expected22 to know what Sherry has access to.23 MR. WASYLIK: Well again, we asked for a24 person with knowledge of affidavits and even though25 he hasn't reviewed the affidavits, you've asserted00491 that he would have knowledge of the underlying2 facts. So I'm entitled to ask that.3 MS. BALRAM: But he's not able to testify as4 to someone else's scope of knowledge.5 MR. WASYLIK: He can testify as to anything he6 has knowledge of that relates to something we've7 asked about, so can you please --8 MS. BALRAM: Object to form.9 MR. WASYLIK: Well, that's not an objection.

10 You're trying to backdoor an instruction not to11 answer. Please don't do that.12 BY MR. WASYLIK:13 Q Do you know whether or not Ms. Sumerauer would14 have had access to the information, to the records for15 this loan file?16 A I concur with my attorney, I don't know what

17 Ms. Sumerauer knows.18 MR. WASYLIK: All right. I have no further19 questions on that exhibit, if you could please hand20 it back to the court reporter. Counsel, I'm going21 to give you the chance to redirect on anything we've22 already covered. I will tell you that we will be23 adjourning this deposition to continue because I24 believe that the plaintiff has not met its25 obligations with respect to the notice to produce;00501 however, at this time if you have any redirect, you2 may.3 MS. BALRAN: Yes.4 CROSS EXAMINATION5 BY MS. BALRAM:

6 Q Brian, have you reviewed the Nationstar file7 with respect to this loan?8 A Yes.9 Q Can you give -- what is the status of this

10 loan currently?11 A It's currently in default.12 Q What is the date of default?13 A Specifically, the date of default is 8/1 of14 '07.15 Q You've previously testified that Nationstar is16 the owner and the servicer of this loan?17 A Correct.18 Q Has Nationstar as the owner and servicer19 received any payments after the default date?20 A No.21 Q So as it stands to date, what is the current22 status of this loan, is it still default?23 A Yes.24 Q Has the defendant -- have you reviewed the25 collection notes in this file?00511 A Yes.2 Q Based on your collection notes, does it3 reflect that a breach letter was sent to the borrower?4 A To my knowledge, yes.5 Q Based on the collection notes, does it show

Page 21


22/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+0614116 that the borrower has attempted to reinstate the loan or7 make any payments on the loan after the date of breach?8 A No.9 MS. BALRAM: No further questions.

10 MR. WASYLIK: I'm going to redirect on that.11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION12 BY MR. WASYLIK:13 Q You answered just a moment ago in response to14 your counsel's questions whether you'd review the15 collection notes and whether the collection notes16 reflect whether a default letter was sent?17 A Yes.18 Q And your answer to that was yes. What in your19 collection note reflects that the default letter was20 sent besides what you've already discussed with me when21 you were discussing the default letter earlier?22 A The date of breach -- as I testified earlier,23 the date of breach on the account, typically within 3024 days after that point, we send out a breach letter.25 Q Now, what you just testified to is that it's00521 typically the case. But when your counsel asked you the

2 question, you said -- you gave an unqualified yes.3 A That is correct. We sent a breach letter.4 Q But the collection notes don't actually5 reflect that the default letter was sent, just that the6 default occurred?7 A If you give me a moment, I can look and see if8 it's in there.9 Q Please do.

10 A It's five years' worth of history, so if you11 give me a moment, I can look and see.12 MR. WASYLIK: Take as much time as you need.13 MS. BALRAM: For the record, counsel, a copy14 of the collection notes was also provided in the15 request for production, in response to request for16 production.

17 (Pause.)18 MS. BALRAM: Counsel, in the interest of time,19 would it help for me to direct my client to the date20 that it says so in the collection notes which has21 been produced to your office or would you rather him22 to continue looking through the file?23 MR. WASYLIK: That's fine. If the plaintiff24 has the position that you can identify that will25 save us time.00531 MS. BALRAM: Because it is five years' worth2 of a loan, a payment history. Brian, I mean I guess3 I can direct you, if you want to look in your own4 notes or here, the breach date as you testified5 previously was in August.6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. You saved some7 time.8 MS. BALRAM: Right.9 THE WITNESS: August 27th of '07.

10 MR. WASYLIK: Can you show me what you're11 referring to specifically.12 MS. BALRAM: Yes.13 BY MR. WASYLIK:14 Q You've circled an entry in the payment15 history --16 MS. BALRAM: The collection history.

Page 22


23/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141117 Q The collection history, I apologize. You've18 circled an entry in the collection history which says19 that a pre-demand letter was sent. And is there any20 cost associated with that?21 A I don't know that.22 Q Okay. You can't tell from this document here?23 A No.24 Q Does that reflect the date on which the25 pre-demand letter was sent?00541 A No, it's not a demand letter --2 Q I'm sorry.3 A -- shows you the pre-demand letter sent. So4 it could be the day after, it could be within three5 days, I don't know.6 Q So the date of this entry is not the exact7 day, but it's close to the time?8 A Yes.9 Q Within a few days?

10 A Yes.11 MR. WASYLIK: Can we attach a copy of this as12 an exhibit? Is this your only --

13 MS. BALRAM: Do you want entire collection14 comment, or you just want that one excerpt out of15 it?16 MR. WASYLIK: Right now, I just want the one17 for this purpose.18 MS. BALRAM: Let's see.19 MR. WASYLIK: Actually --20 MS. BALRAM: If you have a copy of this, we21 can certainly attach it.22 MR. WASYLIK: Okay.23 MS. BALRAM: Also, further down it does show24 when the demand letter, as well, the last entry.25 And it continues to the other page, as well. I'm00551 asking if you wanted the whole thing or just that

2 part?3 MR. WASYLIK: You know, I think you're right.4 Let's go ahead and attach this whole thing.5 MS. BALRAM: We'll just make a copy of this6 for you.7 MR. WASYLIK: And this is Page 13 of the8 collection log, the collection notes.9 MS. BALRAM: Are you going to mark it?

10 MR. WASYLIK: Let's mark the whole thing.11 MS. BALRAM: Sure.12 MR. WASYLIK: And get your client to13 authenticate the entire thing.14 MS. BALRAM: Just note for the record, this is15 a 66-page collection history, and also I would like16 the record to note that this collection history is17 the one that was sent in response to request for18 production, and it's valid through this particular19 one, February 25th, 2010, because that's when we20 served our response, okay?21 MR. WASYLIK: Okay.22 MS. BALRAM: Do you have any further questions23 on your redirect?24 MR. WASYLIK: I'm reviewing my notes.25 (Pause.)00561 MR. WASYLIK: Go ahead if you have further

Page 23


24/27


25/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141111 the same is true and accurate, save and except for12 changes and/or corrections, if any, as indicated by me13 on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the14 understanding that I offer these changes as if still15 under oath.16 Signed on the ___________ day of ________________,17 20__.181920212223242500591 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET2 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________

________________________________________________________3 Reason for change: _____________________________________

Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________4 ________________________________________________________

Reason for change: _____________________________________5 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________







________________________________________________________

12 Reason for change: _____________________________________Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________13 ________________________________________________________










Reason for change: _____________________________________23

SIGNATURE:___________________________ DATE:_____________24 BRIAN WHITE25

Page 25


26/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141100601 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET2 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________










________________________________________________________

12 Reason for change: _____________________________________Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________

13 ________________________________________________________Reason for change: _____________________________________

14 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________________________________________________________________



17 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________________________________________________________________


19 ________________________________________________________

Reason for change: _____________________________________20 Page No. _____ Line No. _____ Change to:________________________________________________________________________



23SIGNATURE:___________________________ DATE:_____________

24 BRIAN WHITE2500611 CERTIFICATE OF OATH2 STATE OF FLORIDA )3 COUNTY OF POLK )4567 I, the undersigned authority, certify that8 the witness in this matter personally appeared before me9 and was duly sworn on the 14th day of June, 2011.

1011 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 14th of12 June, 2011.1314

Page 26


27/27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+06141115161718

_______________________________19 Evelyn M. Adrean, RPR, FPR

Notary Public20 State of Florida at Large

My Commission Number: DD81664521 Expires: 10/05/201222232425

Page 27

Documents

Depo of Brian White of National Star Mortgage