Motion to Dismiss Fraud on the Court Marra Filed Version

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTION

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-

THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2008 CA 000630 NC

TERESA M. MARRA, et al.

Defendants,

___________________________________________/

DEFENDANT TERESA M. MARRAS MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION AND/OR FOR OTHER SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF DUE TO

PLAINTIFFS MATERIAL FRAUD ON THE COURT

Defendant Teresa M. Marra, through undersigned counsel, moves the Court to dismiss

this lawsuit because the plaintiff and its attorneys have purposefully committed material and

culpable fraud on the Court by engaging in purposeful and directed actions that include making

false representations and filing false documents in an effort and attempt to establish its standing

to foreclose a mortgage and to prevail in this foreclosure case.

1. The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward; as set

forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):

The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable

scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial systems ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly

hampering the presentation of the opposing partys claim or defense. Aoude v.

Filing # 8956262 Electronically Filed 01/08/2014 06:21:10 PM

2

Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). The trial court has the

inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an

action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party

refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139

(Fla. 4th DCA 1992). See also Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th

DCA

2003), Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr. Inc., 904 so. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2005),

for the same proposition.

2. Well established Florida law gives this Court the inherent authority to dismiss this action

due to the intentional material and culpable fraud on the committed by plaintiff and its attorneys.

I. Case History Relevant To This Motion

3. This foreclosure lawsuit was filed on January 11, 2008 by GreenPoint Mortgage

Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint).

4. In the Complaint, GreenPoint claimed that it owned and held the Note and Mortgage,

but no copy of the note was attached to the Complaint; only a copy of the mortgage was attached

and the foreclosure complaint contained a lost note count.

5. On February 20, 2009, GreenPoint filed a notice of filing claiming that the original note

and mortgage was attached to the notice filed with the court.

6. On the back side of the last page of the "original" Note there is an undated endorsement

in blank from GreenPoint.

7. On July 14, 2009, Greenpoint filed a document entitled Assignment of Mortgage,

executed 36 days after the commencement of this action; said assignment purports to assign both

3

the mortgage and the note from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to

GreenPoint.

8. In a July 6, 2010, ex parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff (that the court granted the next

day) Greenpoint requested that HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1

be substituted in as the Plaintiff in this foreclosure.

9. In the referenced motion to substitute, Greenpoint and its attorneys advised this court,

without any supporting documentation, that :

Subsequent to filing its complaint, Plaintiff became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 which is now the real party in interest. (Emphasis added.)

10. Counsel for the substituted plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel on

May 11, 2011, which did not attach any supporting documentation as required by the rule, but an

Order allowing the substitution was docketed on May 19, 2011.

11. Defendant Marra formally raised the issue of plaintiff's fraud on the court in her

February 8, 2012, pro se Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, wherein she advised the court that

Plaintiff committed a fraud on the court when it filed the MERS Assignment of Mortgage on

July 14, 2009.

12. Attached to a July 11, 2012, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Verify the

Complaint, the now substituted Plaintiff HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

4

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2006-AB1, attached a proposed amended complaint wherein plaintiff advised the court that:

GreenPoint, pursuant to an assignment executed on August 10, 2011, (and attached to the

proposed Amended Complaint), assigned the note and mortgage from itself to HSBC BANK

USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE

DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-

AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

13. However, the original note endorsed in blank by GreenPoint was already filed with

this court in this action on February 20, 2009, so that it is an admission against interest by the

plaintiff and its lawyers that on August 10, 2011, the date of the above referenced assignment of

the mortgage and note, that GreenPoint had no interest in the note to transfer and no authority to

execute the August 10, 2011 assignment that the plaintiff filed with this court as an attachment to

the proposed amended complaint.

14. The proposed Amended Complaint was verified by Bank of America N.A. as

servicing agent for HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN

TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2006-AB1.

15. The now substituted plaintiff requested leave to file the Amended Complaint to include

the naming of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE

HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN

TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2006-AB1 as the new plaintiff.

5

16. The substituted plaintiff's motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to Verify

the Complaint was heard by Magistrate Bailey on October 8, 2012, but no recommended Order

was submitted by the magistrate on the motion.

17. Thereafter, plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Renewed Motion to Amend the

Complaint, and in this motion misadvised the court that in July 2010, GreenPoint had filed an Ex

Parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff due to an assignment of the subject mortgage to HSBC

BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE

DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-

AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

18. The plaintiff did not file any assignment of mortgage to support this assertion and the Court

thereafter adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate to deny the plaintiff's renewed motion

to amend the complaint by order filed on September 3, 2013.

19. The substituted plaintiff in this action remains HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1, as no other substitution has been ordered by this Court.

/

/

6

FRAUD ON THE COURT

I. PLAINTIFF IS FULLY AWARE THAT ITS OWN Pooling and Servicing Agreement DEMONSTRATES A PRIMA FACIE LACK OF PLAINTIFF'S legal capacity to take an assignment of a non-performing/non-conforming loan in default.

20. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) for HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A

SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-

THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 is incorporated into this Motion and can be

linked to at the SEC website at: http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.v2jq.htm.

21. However, this Court DENIED HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC.,

MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 to be substituted as the plaintiff in this case.

22. Plaintiff and its lawyers told this Court that Greenpoint became HSBC BANK USA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 so that the later declaration to the court that Greenpoint

had assigned the note and mortgage to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC.,


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 in August, 2011 was not possible given that according

to the plaintiff's prior admissions to this court, Greenpoint had already become HSBC BANK

7

USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-

THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 a year before the claimed August 2011

assignment.

23. Greenpoint was not a party or otherwise involved in this foreclosure action in August 2011

and Greenpoint clearly had no authority, competency or capacity to execute the Assignment of

Mortgage in 2011, and the plaintiff's and plaintiff's lawyers statements to the court to the

contrary at a time the plaintiff and counsel were fully aware of this impossibility constitute clear

and convincing prima facie admissible evidence of fraud on this court and this defendant in this

foreclosure action.

24. The plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers were fully aware that the closing date in the referenced

pooling and servicing agreement was January 31, 2006; that only performing loans could be

transferred into this trust and that on the date of the purported August 10, 2011 assignment from

GreenPoint, the subject loan was clearly in default and not performing.

25. It is clear, and the plaintiff and its lawyers were fully aware at the time of the filing of its

motion to substitute plaintiff that its own trust agreement - the referenced pooling and servicing

agreement - prohibits the transfer that this August 10, 2011 assignment purports to represent.

There is no way that the subject loan could have been transferred to the Plaintiff trust pursuant to

this assignment.

8

26. Further, the subject loan did not qualify as a replacement loan that could be substituted into

the trust pursuant to the plaintiff's own pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) which requires

that any substituted loan must be substituted by January 31, 2008 and must also be performing.

27. And, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) Exhibit J to the PSA (and

referenced by and relied upon by Magistrate Bailey in her order DENYING plaintiff's motion to

substitute, clearly requires that when the loan enters the trust as of the closing date, the original

mortgage note with a complete chain of endorsements, an original assignment of mortgage

executed in blank, the original mortgage, and the originals of any intervening assignments of

mortgage be transferred to the trust.

28. The PSA is the trust agreement that establishes the only legal or effective process by which

this New York Corporate Trust can acquire any loan including the loan that is the subject of this

action. The pooling and servicing agreement is filed of record with the Securities and Exchange

Commission; is a matter of public record and is filed of record by plaintiff in this action.

29. In fact, Section 10.02 of the PSA titled Prohibited Transactions and Activities

specifically prohibits the Trust from acquiring the subject mortgage in this action because

Section 10.02 states:

None of the Depositor, the Securities Administrator, the Master Servicer

or the Trustee shall sell, dispose of or substitute for any of the Loans

(except in connection with (i) the foreclosure of a Loan, including but not

limited to, the acquisition or sale of a Mortgaged Property acquired by

deed in lieu of foreclosure, (ii) the bankruptcy of REMIC I, (iii) the

termination of REMIC I pursuant to Article IX of this Agreement, (iv) a

substitution pursuant to Article II of this Agreement or (v) a purchase of

Loans pursuant to Article II of this Agreement), nor acquire any assets for

9

any REMIC (other than REO Property acquired in respect of a defaulted

Mortgage Loan), nor sell or dispose of any investments in the Distribution

Account for gain, nor accept any contributions to any REMIC after the

Closing Date (other than a Substitute Loan delivered in accordance

with Section 2.3), unless it has received an Opinion of Counsel, addressed to the Trustee (at the expense of the party seeking to cause such

sale, disposition, substitution, acquisition or contribution but in no event at

the expense of the Trustee) that such sale, disposition, substitution,

acquisition or contribution will not (a) affect adversely the status of any

REMIC as a REMIC or (b) cause any REMIC to be subject to a tax on

prohibited transactions or contributions pursuant to the REMIC Provisions.

30. The subject mortgage was not original or qualified for transfer to Trustee because the res of

the subject trust cannot consist of loans that do not meet the strict limitations contained in the

PSA that recite and incorporate the REMIC regulations that exist to specify the investments that

qualify for favorable tax treatment. See Section 10.1 Remic Administration, and section 1.1

Definitions, of the PSA and 26 USC 860A-860G.

31. Pursuant to the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement the plaintiff Trust lacks legal

capacity or competency and therefore cannot ever be the owner of Defendants loan despite all

claims of plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers to the contrary.

32. The subject loan cannot be a qualified replacement mortgage which is defined in the

REMIC code (26 U.S.C 860G) and which definition is incorporated into the PSA.

Substitute Loan: A mortgage loan substituted for a Deleted Mortgage Loan pursuant to the terms of this Agreement which must, on the date of such

substitution, (i) have an outstanding principal balance, after application of all

scheduled payments of principal and interest due during or prior to the month of

substitution, not in excess of the Scheduled Principal Balance of the Deleted

Mortgage Loan as of the Due Date in the calendar month during which the

substitution occurs, (ii) have a Mortgage Rate not less than (and not more than

one percentage point in excess of) the Mortgage Rate of the Deleted Mortgage

10

Loan, (iii) have a remaining term to maturity not greater than (and not more than

one year less than) that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan, (iv) have the same Due

Date as the Due Date on the Deleted Mortgage Loan, (v) have a Loan

33. The plaintiff affirmatively claims that the subject mortgage was in default at the time of the

assignment of mortgage and transfer of the subject loan and note to the plaintiff trust.

34. These facts are prima facie admissible evidence in this case that plaintiff and counsel were

fully aware of at the time the plaintiff made its material and culpable claims of loan ownership

and holder status to this court.

35. Plaintiff and counsel knew or should have known that such claims of holder/owner status

were material and false as it is clear and without debate that the subject mortgage loan did not

meet the credit grade requirement, and was not and could never be a qualified mortgage. and

could never become an asset of the plaintiff trust.

36. REMIC regulations issued by the IRS state:

Defective obligations--(1) Defective obligation defined. For purposes of sections

860G(a)(4)(B)(ii) and 860F(a)(2) [26 USCS 860G(a)(4)(B)(ii) and

860F(a)(2)], a defective obligation is a mortgage subject to any of the

following defects:

(i) The mortgage is in default, or a default with respect to the mortgage is reasonably foreseeable.

(2) Effect of discovery of defect. If a REMIC discovers that an

obligation is a defective obligation, and if the defect is one that,

had it been discovered before the startup day, would have

prevented the obligation from being a qualified mortgage, then,

unless the REMIC either causes the defect to be cured or

disposes of the defective obligation within 90 days of

discovering the defect, the obligation ceases to be a qualified

mortgage at the end of that 90 day period.

26 CFR 1.860G-2(f)

11

37. The subject mortgage in default was a defective obligation, not a qualified

mortgage and clearly could not have been a qualified substitute mortgage when

allegedly assigned to Plaintiff.

38. The subject mortgage is not (Real Estate Owned) REO property. This fact is

important with respect to the presentation of prima facie admissible evidence of fraud on

this court by plaintiff and counsel because REO property is defined in and limited by

the PSA in the Definitions section:

A Mortgaged Property, title to which has been acquired by a Servicer on behalf of the Trust Fund through foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise.

REO property is Trust property acquired upon the default of a mortgage loan that is already a

part of the mortgage pool.

39. There is No Opinion of Counsel. Another showing of prima facie fraud on the court by

plaintiff and counsel is revealed by the contents of the PSA and the REMIC regulations

incorporated therein that the plaintiff and counsel are held accountable for being fully aware of,

to wit:

A REMIC shall not generally be subject to taxation and pursuant to the PSA, an Opinion of

Counsel is required before the trustee could legally acquire the subject loan by assignment. 26

USCS 860A. Section 2.3(b) states:

the Seller shall obtain at its own expense and deliver to the Trustee an Opinion of Counsel to the effect that such substitution will not cause (a) any federal

tax to be imposed on any REMIC, including without limitation, any federal

tax imposed on prohibited transactions under Section 860F(a)(1) of the Code or on contributions after the startup date under Section 860G(d)(1) of the Code, or (b) any REMIC to fail to qualify as a REMIC at any time that

any Certificate is outstanding.

12

The PSA defines Opinion of Counsel as follows:

Opinion of Counsel: A written opinion of counsel, who may, without limitation, be salaried counsel for the Depositor, the Servicer, the Securities

Administrator or the Master Servicer, acceptable to the Trustee, except that any

opinion of counsel relating to (a) the qualification of any REMIC as a REMIC or

(b) compliance with the REMIC Provisions must be an opinion of Independent

counsel.

40. In this case there can not be an opinion of independent counsel because the subject mortgage

never qualified as foreclosure property or a qualified substitute mortgage and was a

defective obligation under the REMIC tax provisions.

41. Marras mortgage was not a foreclosure property because it was never bank owned

property.

42. Marras loan was not a qualified substitute mortgage because at the time of substitution it

would have been a defective obligation under the REMIC tax provisions because it was in non-

performing/in default.

43. Foreclosure property is a permitted investment but the property must have first been

included in the Trust as a qualified mortgage so this is not applicable to the subject loan. 26

U.S.C. 860F.

44. The REMIC Code defines Foreclosure property, as follows:

Foreclosure property means property (A) which would be foreclosure property under section 856(e) [26 USCS

856(e)] (without regard to paragraph (5) thereof) if acquired by a real

estate investment trust, and

(B) Which is acquired in connection with the default or imminent default of a qualified mortgage held by the REMIC. 26 USCS 860G

The term foreclosure property does not include property acquired by the real estate investment

trust as a result of indebtedness arising from the sale or other disposition of property of the trust

13

described in section 1221(a)(1) [26 USCS 1221(a)(1)] which was not originally acquired as

foreclosure property. 26 USCS 856(e).

Property is not eligible for the election to be treated as foreclosure property if the loan or lease with respect to which the default occurs (or is imminent) was

made or entered into (or the lease or indebtedness was acquired) by the trust

with an intent to evict or foreclose, or when the trust knew or had reason to

know that default would occur ("improper knowledge"). 26 CFR 1.856-6.

45. The Plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the Plaintiff had no power to acquire or take

assignment of the subject mortgage at the time the plaintiff and counsel advised the court of the

opposite.

46. The reason that the plaintiff cannot ever acquire or take assignment of the subject mortgage

is because such acquisition or assignment is a prohibited transaction under the plaintiff's own

trust agreement:

Section 10.1(b) of the PSA states:

The Closing Date is hereby designated as the Startup Day of each REMIC created hereunder within the meaning of Section 860G(a)(9) of the Code.

Section 10.1(i) of the PSA states:

Following the Startup Day, the Trustee shall not accept any contributions of

assets to any REMIC other than in connection with any Substitute Mortgage

Loan delivered in accordance with Section 2.3 unless it shall have received an

Opinion of Counsel addressed to it to the effect that the inclusion of such assets

in the Trust Fund will not cause the related REMIC to fail to qualify as a REMIC

at any time that any Certificates are outstanding or subject such REMIC to any tax

under the REMIC Provisions or other applicable provisions of federal, state and

local law or ordinances.

14

47. The purported assignment presented to this court by plaintiff and its counsel is void.

48. Plaintiff and counsel were fully aware of the above at the time they told this court that the

assignment created or transferred legal rights and status to the plaintiff to sue on the underlying

note or foreclose the subject mortgage.

49. Section 11.4 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement states:

Governing Law. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS OF LAWS

PRINCIPLES OTHER THAN SECTION 5-1401 OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW), AND THE

OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE

DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAWS.

50. Applicable New York common law, made applicable to the Plaintiff pursuant to the specific

terms of its own trust agreement, precludes the trustee from ratifying any ultra vires act of the

trust performed by the agents of the trust in contravention of the PSA. Such an act would be

void.

51. The plaintiff trust and plaintiff's counsel told this court that the plaintiff had legal status and

capacity and competency to foreclose the subject mortgage and to sue on the underlying note

while the plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that plaintiff was precluded from claiming such

status on account of the fact that any effort to do so is clearly ultra vires, in contravention of the

PSA and rendered void.

Fraud on the Court WHEN GreenPoint Was the Plaintiff

52. GreenPoint Mortgage was the plaintiff from January 11, 2008, until July 7, 2010, when the

Court, in reliance on the documents filed by GreenPoint, granted GreenPoints ex parte motion to

15

substitute party plaintiff to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-

AB1.

53. The March 28, 2008, Assignment of Mortgage and Note from MERS to Greenpoint that

Greenpoint filed with this court (on July 14, 2009) is clear and convincing prima facie admissible

evidence of fraud on the Court committed by Greenpoint and Greenpoint's counsel because at the

time of the filing of said assignment, in July 2009, Greenpoint and its counsel were fully aware

that the March 28, 2008, Assignment of Mortgage and note from MERS, as mortgagee, to

Greenpoint, on it face, established that Greenpoint did not own or hold the note or the subject

mortgage until the March 28, 2008 date of assignment which assignment to Greenpoint occurred

AFTER the filing of this foreclosure action on January 11, 2008.

54. Additionally, at the time that Greenpoint and counsel filed the referenced Assignment of

mortgage AND NOTE from MERS, Greenpoint and counsel were fully aware that MERS does

not ever hold or own promissory notes so that the representation to this court to the contrary is

clear and convincing prima facie admissible evidence of material and culpable fraud on this

court.

55. MERS declared in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Nebraska Department

of Banking, 704 N.W.2d 784,787 (Neb. 2005), that it does not acquire mortgage

loansbecause it only holds legal title to members mortgages in a nominee capacity and that

it does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments

16

made on the notes. MERS clearly states that it merely immobilizes the mortgage lien while

transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur. Ibid.

56. Clearly Greenpoint and counsel were fully aware that MERS had no authority to assign the

subject promissory note.

Fraud on the Court By HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-

THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1

57. At the time that Greenpoint (and the substituted plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1) filed the July 6, 2010 Motion to Substitute Plaintiff,

Greenpoint and HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel

were fully aware that Greenpoint never became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

58. Greenpoint, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel

were fully aware at the time of the filing of the July 6, 2010 motion that Greenpoint was in fact

acquired by Capital One, NA in mid-2007 as part of a conversion and merger with North Fork, a

state bank that closed immediately thereafter in August of 2007.

17

59. Additionally Greenpoint, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-

AB1 and counsel were fully aware at the time of the filing of the July 6, 2010 motion that

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. was established in July 2004 as a National Bank.

60. Plaintiff and plaintiffs attorneys' statement to this court, set out in the July 6, 2010 motion,

that Greenpoint became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 is

prima facie admissible evidence of material and culpable fraud on this court because plaintiff and

counsel were fully aware that Capital One Financial Corporation filed a Report with the Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency, dated January 2, 2007, wherein Capital One declares that it

had acquired Greenpoint by the date of that Report.

61. Clearly Greenpoint, was an acquisition of Capital One and never become known as HSBC

Bank USA an entirely different banking institution as stated to this court by Greenpoint and

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel.

62. As of July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff in This Case is HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and Remains so at the present time.

63. However, at the time that the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Verify the

Complaint was filed with this court on July 11, 2012 by the substituted plaintiff and counsel for

18

substituted plaintiff, which motion incorporated the purported August 10, 2011 assignment of

mortgage (and note) from Greenpoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC.,


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1, the substituted Plaintiff and its lawyers were fully

aware that it had already told the court that Greenpoint became HSBC BANK USA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH


64. As Magistrate Bailey stated in her Recommended Order which was adopted by order of this

court: GreenPoint had no ability to execute another Assignment of Mortgage in 2011.

(emphasis added)

65. The purported August 10, 2011, assignment of mortgage (and note) from Greenpoint to

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS

OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES

2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 filed by

plaintiff and counsel is prima facie clear and convincing admissible evidence of deliberate

material and culpable fraud on the Court.

66. Another reason that the substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the purported

August 10, 2011 assignment of mortgage and note (prepared by Kahane and Associates) was an

impossibility and/or void at the time of the filing of said assignment with this court is because

such a transfer of the subject note and mortgage could not legally happen after the January 31,

19

2006 closing date of the PSA that controls HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC.,


CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and that said PSA only allows new loans to be

transferred into the trust that are performing loans at the time of the transfer.

67. Substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware pursuant to the complaint allegations that

at the time that the August 10, 2011 was purportedly executed, the subject mortgage was not

performing (in default) and that the applicable PSA prohibits the transfer this assignment

purports to represent.

68. The Substituted Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and

Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof filed with this court on May 16, 2013 recounts a self-

serving and clearly erroneous procedural history (as Magistrate Bailey noted).

69. In paragraph 3 of the above referenced renewed motion, substituted plaintiff and counsel

erroneously claimed, and advised this court that back in July 2012, the first filed ex parte motion

to substitute named HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN

TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES,

2006-AB1 as the substituted plaintiff.

70. Clearly this is not the case, and substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the

first motion to substitute dealt with the substitution of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

20



71. The substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware at the time of the filing of the renewed

motion to substitute, that the statement in this Motion -- [t]hat on or about July 2, 2010, prior

counsel for the Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff due to an assignment of

mortgage which transferred the interest on this loan to the current plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE

ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1,

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1. -- was a material

false statement of fact on account of the fact that pursuant to the filings in the court record there

was no assignment dated on or before July 2010 to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL


SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1.

72. Substituted Plaintiff directed this Court in the court record to the PSA for HSBC BANK

USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE

DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-

AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 which is

filed with the SEC and linked at http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.v2Jq.htm.

73. The provisions of this PSA conflict with the substituted plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers

claims that the August 10, 2011 Assignment of mortgage (and note) that was created by

21

Plaintiffs attorneys and filed with this Court on July 11, 2012 purporting to assign the subject

Mortgage together with the note from GreenPoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL



PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 is Fraud on this Court.

74. As Magistrate Bailey noted in her Recommended Order, After taking into consideration the

above-cited information from the PSA, it appears that the transfers that have been variously

asserted by the Plaintiff in several Motions and/or documents attached to those Motions as

conferring standing upon it could not have possibly occurred as the Plaintiff represents. Further,

the Magistrate cannot conceive of any manner in which the Plaintiff could possibly create

additional documentation in an effort to manufacture standing in this action.

75. The determined obfuscation continues in the Renewed Motion to substitute which names the

Plaintiff as GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc..

76. The Renewed motion ignores the fact, and substituted plaintiff and counsel expect this court

to ignore the fact, that HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE

FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 is the

substituted Plaintiff in this case.

77. Substituted Plaintiff and counsel also obfuscate by referring to HSBC BANK USA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE

ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1,

22

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 in the renewed

motion as the current Plaintiff, which it is not.

78. It is clear that the July 11, 2012 Motion and Purported August 10, 2011 Assignment of

Mortgage together with the note Prepared by Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kahane and Associates,

are fraudulent documents created and filed by Plaintiffs attorneys for the purpose of this

litigation in an effort to manufacture standing, and constitute Fraud on the Court.

79. In July 2010, Plaintiff and plaintiffs lawyers had already told this Court that Greenpoint

became HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-AB1.

80. Based on the above described July 2010 statements made to this court, it is clear that there

could be no assignment from Greenpoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL



PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 in August of 2011 since,

according to the plaintiff, Greenpoint had already become HSBC Bank USA, National

Association, as Trustee for the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AB1, a year

earlier.

81. Greenpoint was out of this case by August 2011, and as Magistrate Bailey stated in her

Recommended Order, GreenPoint had no ability to execute another Assignment of Mortgage in

2011.

23

WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment providing no relief to Plaintiff, and that

the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and for judgment in favor of Defendant against

Plaintiff, and for an award of attorneys fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as is

deemed equitable and to which defendant proves herself entitled to penalize Greenpoint,

substituted plaintiff and counsel for the above described material and culpable fraud on the court

and on this defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ April C. Charney, Esq.

April Charney, Esq. FBN 310425, pro bono attorney

Robin L. Stover, Esq. FBN 0064494

Mary Catherine Rooney, Esq. FBN 0089219

GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

1750 17th

Street, Unit I

Sarasota FL 34234

941-366-1746

Fax: 941-366-2314

With Notice of Email Address for Service of Court Documents pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin.

2.516(b)(1)(A) designated as:

Primary email: [email protected]

Secondary Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Answer to counsel

for plaintiff, at designated email for service:

[email protected]

Kahane & Associates, P.A.

8201 Peters Road, Ste. 3000

Plantation, FL 33324

This 8th day of January 2014.

/s/ Robin L. Stover, Esq.