IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEESIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, RUTHERFORD COUNTY

AT MURFREESBORO

David B. Starkey ) CASE NO: 13CV-263624 Lascassas Pike )Murfreesboro, TN., 37130 ) Plaintiff, Pro Se )

) VS. )

) WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. )IKE MOSES (AGENT OF WELLS) ) WILSON AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC )FEDERAL HOME LOAN )MORTGAGE CORPORATION ) DOES 1-1000 INCLUSIVE ) 3624 LASCASSAS PIKE, ) MURFREESBORO, TN. 37130 )

) _________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Comes the Plaintiff, appearing pro se, and opposes Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A.’S (WELLS) Motion to Dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of

Civil Procedure for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore,

Plaintiff opposes Defendant WELLS motion for an order for a more definite statement pursuant

to Rule 12.05 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

to allege any facts supporting the claim”, and moves this court for an Order denying the

Defendants’ Motion. As to the reasons therefore, Plaintiff would show this Honorable Court as

follows:

3 Opposition to Wilsons MTD 13CV-26 Page 1

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is based on the First Amended Complaint, but the

Court has granted Plaintiff permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has filed a

Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion should be dismissed, as it

does not pertain to the Second Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiff contacted Defendant

about these facts and apparently Edward D. Russel of Wilson & Associates, PLLC, has decided

to continue with the scheduled hearing on June 20th, 2013.

Background and Facts

The current action arose as a result of the Plaintiff being unable to get Defendants to

verify the alleged debt and inform the Plaintiff who the Holder in Due Course of the Promissory

Note and the “creditor” was concerning the property located at 3624 Lascassas Pike,

Murfreesboro, TN 37130 (the “property”). As stated in #9 of Plaintiffs 2nd Amended Complaint:

“ Plaintiff was led to believe by Defendant Ike that he would be engaging in a “mortgage loan

transaction” with Defendant Wells as the “lender of funds” on or about June 7, 2007”. As stated

in Plaintiffs Complaint at #14: “The purported “mortgage loan transaction” with Defendant

Wells was and is by information and belief part of a securitization scheme whereby investors in

Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) were the source of funds for Plaintiffs “loan” and not

Defendant Wells.” Plaintiff therefore denies the Deed of Trust (DOT) as it secures a transaction

that never happened as documented in the alleged true copies of the Promisorry Note that

Plaintiff has been able to obtain from Defendants through Qualified Written Requests (QWR).

Plaintiff has denied the “note” and the DOT numerous times in his Complaint (see #16, 18, 20,

21, 22 and elsewhere).

As stated in #82 of Plaintiffs Complaint: Plaintiff recorded an Affidavit of Forgery in

regard to Wilsons Appointment of Successor Trustee (See Exhibit L) of the complaint. And in

3 Opposition to Wilsons MTD 13CV-26 Page 2

#83 of the complaint Plaintiff denied the truthfulness of the contents of Wilsons Appointment of

Successor Trustee. Defendant Wilson is aware that recording paperwork in the Register of Deeds

does not guarantee its truthfulness. Plaintiff alleges in # 181 of his complaint that: “Upon

information and belief, the alleged trustee does not know the identity of the Owner and Holder in

Due Course of my Note, and, therefore, does not know the person authorized to issue instructions

regarding the Security Instrument. And in #182 Plaintiff alleges: “Upon information and belief,

the alleged trustee doesn’t use internal policies or procedures that would permit it to determine

whether the person engaging it to initiate the foreclosure process under my Security Instrument

actually is the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note or a duly appointed servant of that

Owner.” # 183 of Plaintiffs Complaint states: “Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee

initiated these foreclosure procedures of its own volition in violation of the express terms of my

Security Instrument and Tennessee foreclosure law.” This alleges serious wrong doing by

Defendant Wilson and As stated in #184 of Plaintiffs Complaint: “Upon information and belief,

the alleged trustee knows that public recording of documents does not ensure that the content is

accurate, truthful or authorized by law. Accordingly, I deny that the alleged trustee acted, or is

acting, in good faith to the extent it initiated and continues to conduct this foreclosure process

alleging reliance on the fact that it can point to one or more documents which have been publicly

recorded”. Defendant Wilson was not properly appointed as a successor trustee. #175 of

Plaintiffs Complaint states: “Plaintiff denies that the original trustee ever resigned or was

replaced.” #176 states: “Plaintiff denies that any substitute trustee ever became the successor to

the original trustee.” And #177 states that: “Plaintiff denies that any Defendant has, in good faith

or otherwise, ever acquired the right to sell the subject property or seek possession thereof.”

# 56 of Plaintiffs complaint states: “In notice of trustee sale (NTS)

3 Opposition to Wilsons MTD 13CV-26 Page 3

Wilson stated that they mailed Plaintiff a HB -3588 letter and that notice

of sale has been inserted in the local paper on December 14th, 21st and

28th. And in #57 Plaintiff states: “Plaintiff denies that Defendant Wilson

provided him with a HB -3588 letter.”

Respectfully submitted,

____________________

David B. Starkey Plaintiff Pro Se3624 Lascassas PikeMurfreesboro, TN., 37130

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this _______ day of March 2013, a true and exact copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, to:

John A Barney (BPR 17871)WILSON AND ASSOCIATES PLLCCreekside Crossing III8 Cadillac Drive, Suite 120Brentwood, TN 37027

3 Opposition to Wilsons MTD 13CV-26 Page 4