PI - Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC...Per the BABC website, "A recent Seven Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Attorneys Featured in The American Lawyer 4/2012 Wendell Allen, Michael GrifIm,

July 272012

Sent Via Fed Ex United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District ofNew York One Bowling Green New York NY 10004 T 212-686-2870

Re Residential Capital LLC et aZ Chapter 11 Case No 12-12020 (MG)

Dear SirlMadam

Enclosed please find an original ofthe

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF LIMITED OBJECTION OF PATRICK HOPPER TO DEBTORS MOTION TO EMPLOY AND RETAIN BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP AS SPECIAL LITIGATION AND COMPLIANCE COUNSEL TO THE DEBTORS

together with exhibits

Please file accordingly Reference [Dkt No 721 809866]

Please file accordingly

Sincerely

PI Patrick J Hopper 220 McCartney Dr 239-293-0432 pjhgmacbkgmailcom (preferred contact)

12-12020-mg Doc 940 Filed 073012 Entered 073112 094802 Main Document Pg 1 of 16

uml1curren544 ampwlaquo
1212020120731000000000006
Docket 0940 Date Filed 7302012

July 272012

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 272012 I served the Special Service List by email ifprovided and others via first class United States the

Pam Bondi Florida Attorney General The Capital PL-Ol Tallahassee Fl 32399

Tom Grady Florida OFR 200 E Gaines Street The Fletcher building Suite 118 Tallahassee FI 32399

Howard Seife hseifechadboumecom

Joseph Smith Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight 301 Fayetteville St Suite 1801 Raleigh NC 27601


Patrick J Hopper July 27 2012 Case 09-11026 co 220 McCartney Dr Moon Twp Pa 15108 Telephone (239) 293-0432 pjhgmacbkgmaiLcom (preferred contact)

Pro-Se non attorney Movant

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------J(In re Residential Capital LLC et al Chapter 11 Case No 12-12020 (MG)

Debtors Administratively Consolidated

----------------------------------------------------------------J(

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF LIMITED OBJECTION OF PATRICK HOPPER TO DEBTORS MOTION TO

EMPLOY AND RETAIN BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP AS SPECIAL LITIGATION AND COMPLIANCE COUNSEL TO THE DEBTORS

MOVANT Patrick J Hopper pro-se a contingent claimant declares

L On July 16 2012 I filed a Limited Objection [Dkt No 809] to the Authorization

to Employ and Retain Bradley Arant Boult Cummings BABC as Special Litigation and

Compliance Counsel to the Debtors [Dkt No 721] Section 327( e) allows for the retention of

an attorney that has represented the debtor if it is in the best interest of the estate and if such

attorney does not represent or hold any interest adverse to the debtor or to the estate with respect

to the matter on which such attorney is to be employed

BACKGROUND

2 In filing my limited objection I learned of for the first time that BABC assisted

the Debtors in the negotiation of and compliance with their obligations under (a) the Board of

JUl 3 Q 2012

COUi1T YOnK


Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System Consent Order dated April 13 2011 (the Consent

Order) by and among AFI Ally Bank ResCap GMAC Mortgage LLC the Board of

Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (b)

the consent judgment entered April 5 2012 by the District Court for the District ofCo lumbia

dated February 92012 (the Consent Judgment)

3 Based on this representation BABC should not be placed in a position of

requiring its partners who represented Debtor in the Consent Judgment to now defend action

based on these allegations and at the same time provide guidance to Debtor to implement the

changes required by such order

4 My Limited Objection was filed in good faith related to the appointment of

BABC as Special Counsel coming on the heels ofthe above Consent Judgment Such

judgment was based on allegations ofevents that had transpired over the past few years in the

mortgage servicing industry To the extent that BABC represented Debtor in the Consent

Judgment raises issues of conflict leading to questioning impartiality and holding an interest

that is adverse

5 The Consent Judgment began with the robo-signing investigation which

broadened into examination ofthe mortgage industry Although the Consent Order entered in

2011 provided comfort that improper actions had ceased time did not stop and litigation

proceeded and abuses continued

6 This Consent Judgment provides assurances for new standards going forward

compensates those impacted by past practices but leaves the remaining group ofactive litigants

in a state ofuncertainty as they need to defend litigation based on incomplete and misleading

documents


7 BABC has in-depth knowledge related to the allegations and exposure Debtor

faced with thousands of foreclosures that had already been p led based on Debtors inability to

document an unbroken chain of assignment To the extent BABC is aware ofthese issues in

ongoing litigation and does not correct them in filings creates further conflict and potentially

Continuation ofa Fraud on the Court

8 The Senior Team at BABC that was involved in both the Consent Order and

Consent Judgment have expertise in litigating all facets ofthe mortgage industry including but

not limited to origination pooling and servicing agreements (PSA) loan repurchase disputes

investor disputes secondary market representations and warranties servicing matters settlement

services issues and mortgage fraud Per the BABC website A recent Seven Bradley Arant Boult

Cummings Attorneys Featured in The American Lawyer 42012 Wendell Allen Michael GrifIm

Christy Hancock Dana Lumsden Robert Maddox Douglas J Minor Jr and Brian D ODell

are featured in The American Lawyer article Brokering a $25 Billion Deal

9 The advantage ofthe extended knowledge base of this team is the ability to

understand how to navigate through the complex layers from loan origination to protection of

homeowners property rights throughout a securitization process ensuring delivery ofa clear and

marketable title upon full satisfaction of the loan

10 The assurance of clear and marketable title is a Constitutional Right that was

historically protected in the public recording offices by individuals who took an oath to protect

the Rights afforded under the constitution With the introduction ofMERS in 1995 an electronic

registry was designed to track Servicing Rights and Ownership This enabled the

securitization of mortgages using MERS (a non lender) while providing for a protection to

Homeowners Title the third party beneficiary A securitization involves Originators


14 In the Supplemental Maddox Declaration [Dkt No 866] Paragraphs 18 1920

BABC identifies two accounts producing more than one percent ofBABCs average annual

gross revenues during such period The parties are HSBC Bank US NA and Wells Fargo Bank

National Association and states Each ofthose matters is unrelated to the matters for which the

Debtors seek to engage BABC As Wells Fargo is traditionally involved in securitization

transactions as a Custodian or Master Servicer and HSBC as a Trustee on behalfofthe

investors BABC should clarify the extent to which it has previously provided services to ensure

a conflict does not exist As a mortgage is part ofthe entire transaction upon successful

satisfaction ofthe homeowners obligation this needs to be disclosed to ensure no interests are

adverse to the Debtors estate their creditors and other parties of interest

15 BABC disclosed [Dkt No 721] the representation ofvarious parties within a

securitization process that the firm BABC currently represents and further disclosed interests

are mutual and aligned with those of Debtors This statement may be accurate if the intent is

to manage damage control as it relates to the Consent Judgment on current litigation By

controlling the process BABC appears to be attempting to protect a colorable claim that does not

exist

16 Unlike other legal firms that Debtor has requested to employ and retain BABC

has a vested interest in continuing to litigate actions that are active especially ones in which they

have actively been involved

17 This conflict is more probable in cases initiated by frrms such as the Law Offices

of David 1 Stern (DJS) andor relying on any document signed by robo-signor Jeffrey

Stephan and other purported robo-signers This has created chaos in the court system and


flooded the courts with inaccurate filings This Consent Judgment is intended to protect

homeowners going forward from these very abuses that are being litigated today in state court

18 In those actions that BABC inherited from firms such as DJS the level of

conflict is elevated Many ofthese actions have resulted from allegations of inappropriate past

practices that unfortunately still remain active in foreclosure actions With BABCs

representation ofDebtor in the Consent Judgment and Consent Order BABC is well aware of

the allegations addressed as part of these settlements

19 For actions that continue to be pursued unless such foreclosure actions have been

re-filed in accordance within the terms of the settlement a conflict remains and a risk of

continuing a potential fraud on the court

SUPPORT FOR OBJECTION

20 In were called upon to testify I could and would testify competently to the facts

set forth herein inter alia review ofstate court case 09-11026-CA in Collier County circuit court

ofthe 20th judicial circuit ofFlorida Redwood Trust Inc SEC filings MERS system and Wells

Fargo CIS link

21 My decision to defend myself pro se was based on principle as I was denied the

ability to fulfill my Duties as a Debtor in case 809-bk-12702 a chapter7 asset case under Rule

4002 (4) cooperate with the trustee in and the administration othe estate This related to a

nonexempt asset which now is the subject of this foreclosure action I interpreted Rule 4002 as

establishing my fiduciary duty to work with the trustee on maximizing the recovery in an asset

case for the benefit of all creditors of my estate as my bankruptcy estate held all legal and

equitable interests in my property which was not claimed as exempt Until the asset was


abandoned I had a fiduciary duty to cooperate with the trustee to maximize the value ofthis

asset on behalf ofmy creditors

22 Attached is a copy ofa recent Amended Verified Complaint (Exhibit A)

granted July 92012 filed by the law firm ofBABC apparently in accordance with the

Consent Judgment and pursuant to this courts order granted (Dkt 774] (Granting limited stay

reliet) As BABC is very familiar with the requirements ofthe Consent Judgment

23 It is surprising that such filing has been pled on the heels ofthe Consent

Judgment by a partner involved in the Consent Judgment without reference to a key

document the assignment which is an attempt to obtain foreclosure by ignoring proofof

standing

24 Once again I find myself needing to defend myself despite new compliance

guidelines established according to the Consent Judgment not allowed to communicate directly

with a single point of contact at Debtor related to this foreclosure all in violation ofthe

judgment

25 I have attached my Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim ofaction andor

in the alternative for a more definite statement to frame defendants permitted responsive

pleading (Exhibit B)

26 As Debtor filed for bankruptcy protection on May 142012 approximately 30

days after entering a Consent Judgment on AprilS 2012 it appears counsel in my case was fully

aware ofthe pending Consent Judgment when they filed an Amended Verified Complaint

along with a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 282012 Although counsel

indicated they intended to schedule both ofthese for May 252012 BABC tried to move up

the hearing for Amended Verified Complaint to be heard in front of a magistrate on or about


April 9 as BABC indicated that motions to Amend are Required to be heard in front ofa

magistrate On March 26 BABC schedule such hearing for April 2 and did not provide notice to

me leading to my letter to the court dated April 12 2012

27 In litigation BABC and Debtor have an unfair advantage in that two ofthe

attorneys listed in paragraph 8 Christian Hancock and Brian Odell participated in negotiating

the Consent Judgment and probably the Consent Order This experience provides them with

valuable knowledgeable ofthe magnitude ofthe allegations and the sensitivity oflitigation that

challenges a servicers right to standing

28 As stated by BABC [Dkt No 721] these cases are assigned to BABC based on

their complexity and the higher potential for exposure to the Debtors With the new knowledge

ofBABCs representation ofDebtor in the Consent Judgment in hindsight it appears odd that

Christian Hancock would choose to send an attorney to a hearing on July 92912 that specializes

in construction not mortgage foreclosure Such attorney is not knowledgeable of the particulars

issues in this high exposure case not familiar with the requirements ofthe Consent Judgment

and therefore can claim ignorance if questioned on an issue of fact which occurred when a clear

answer could not be given on the lack ofassignment

29 Christian Hancock in August of2011 in my request for admissions provided the

following objection - Plaintiff objects on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous Such

answer was pursuant to a question requesting Please admit that in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-8 Loan number 0084378587 with an original

loan balance 0$479200 is the note subject to this complaint The question referred to an exhibit

that was attached being a printout of the Wells Fargo httpctslinkcomlSeriesDocument-2004-8

under foreclosure loan detail Pool I


30 I asked this question as the MERS system for loan 0084378587 identified the

investor as Redwood Trust Inc Debtor in response to a request ofthe OFR request 23488

stated the investor was Wells Fargo

31 BABC counsel is well aware that a Pooling and Servicing Agreement requires a

mortgage show an unbroken chain ofassignments evidencing transfer oftitle from the

originator ofthe loan to the trust See eg Talcott Franklin amp Thomas Nealon III Mortgage and

Asset Backed Securities Litigation Handbook sect 5105 - 5118

32 Further supporting this is Debtors [Dkt 322] for Approval ofthe RMBS

Settlement Agreements to be Held on July 10 2012 at 1000 am (E1) paragraph 14 states

Under the Governing Agreements the Mortgage Loans belong to the Trusts which hold them

for the benefit ofthe Holders in the Trusts20 See Pooling and Servo Agrmnt sect 201 (a) (The

Company concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof does hereby assign to the Trustee

for the benefit ofthe Certificate holders without recourse all the right title and interest ofthe

Company in and to the Mortgage Loans ) and sect 202 (acceptance by Trustee)

33 Debtor originally sought relief of stay in a chapter 7 in the Bankruptcy action in

Tampa 809-bk-12702 as servicer for a HSBC on behalf ofSEQMT 2004-08

34 Debtor is foreclosing as Servicer for an unknown party however obtained all

right title and interest via an assignment from Greenpoint Mortgage effective Nov 302009 by

Jeffrey Stephan Greenpoint per SEC filings sold all interest in 2004 to RWT therefore had no

interest or rights to assign in 2009 (note assignment only mentioned Greenpoint) making the

assignment flawed which is irreparable

FRAUD ON THE COURT


35 In Florida what constitutes Fraud upon the Court This occurs when a party sets

in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial systems ability

to impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly

hampering the presentation of the opposing partys claim or defense Cox v Burke 706 So2d

43 46 (Fla 5 th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v Mobil Oil Corp 892 F 2d 1115 1118 (1 st Cir

1989)

36 With the Consent Judgment active litigants are caught in the middle between

opposing counsel that decides to correct filings based on the new guidelines and those that try to

shortcut the requirements in an effort to avoid exposure

37 When fraud is suspected an attorneys duty to the court supersedes the attorneys

duty to the client It was reported that investigators for the Florida Attorney Generals Office

found tens ofthousands offorged signatures backdated documents and other problem

paperwork at four law fIrms so-called foreclosure mills One such fIrm was Law Offices of

David J Stern (DJS) and documents signed by Jeffrey Stephan who sought on behalf of

Debtor as servicer on behalf ofHSBC Bank USA National Association as Trustee for SEQMT

2004-08 and its successors and assigns

38 BABC with the vast knowledge ofthe entire process should be removed from

defending actions that appear to be purely an attempt to protect BABC exposure If this is the

case BABCs interest are not aligned with the Debtors estate their creditors and other parties of

interest

39 Per the Supplemental Maddox Declaration which I did not receive a copy from

counsel Mr Hopper asserts that BABe has taken inaccurate false and misleading statements

and discovery Despite these allegations Mr Hopper has not filed any requests for sanctions in


the Foreclosure Proceeding Contrary to his assertions BABC has not engaged in any

misconduct in the Foreclosure Proceeding and has represented the Debtors ethically in that

matter

40 In regards to my lack of requesting sanction I tried to give BABC the benefit of

the doubt as they inherited my case As BABC is aware a Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the

Court as part of a Summary Judgment was filed on October 14 2011 As a pro-se litigant I am

looking for to move on and get this behind me as I filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009 and

three years later am consumed by this litigation All because I can not get one clear fact who

owns the note I therefore unable to focus on the fresh start which a bankruptcy filing typically

provides instead spending over 400 plus hours trying to find out this one fact

41 Based on the written Testimony ofRobert M Couch BABC Counsel in a

Hearing ofThe US Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs August 2

2011 Fact-based determinations in a court oflaw however are far better and ultimately provide

more protection than simply requiring servicers to contribute money to a fund

42 The new fact-based Amended Verified Complaint granted July 9 2012 by

Debtor along with counsel BABC appears not to be in compliance with the new servicing

standards approved in the AprilS 2012 judgment (see Exhibit A - specifically the assignment

or lack thereof)

43 As of the date offiling the Amended Verified Complaint Debtor currently is

seeking relief as servicer for rights obtained from 4 separate entities (SEQMT 2004-8

Greenpoint Mortgage Redwood Trust Inc and Wells Fargo Bank) to 4 different parties

(Bankruptcy Court State Court MERS system and The Florida OFR)


44 Based on the MERS rules the investor reflects Redwood Trust Inc whom was

never party to this transaction As MERS rules requires Debtor to ensure accuracy of investor

field and as Debtor has been on the MERS system since 2000 it appears a non-party has rights

45 As Ally Financial Inc is not a Debtor in this bankruptcy filing the issues of

impartiality and holding an interest that is adverse need to be considered as BABC has

knowledge of the inter-workings ofthese companies as it relates to the mortgage servicing

securitization etc

46 Litigation needs to be done based on supportable facts enabling a remedy oflaw

All efforts must be made to cease continuation of litigation on facts that are knowingly

inaccurate as this furthers a fraud on the court and goes against the intent ofthe Consent

Judgment

47 Debtors current legal strategy appears to be focused on continually showing the

complexity ofthe securitization process and isolating foreclosure action to only documents that

are relevant to parties as it relates to the original debt that is now being foreclosed upon arguing

you borrowed the money and owe the debt thus avoiding the exposures created from a broken

chain ofassignment Unfortunately in cases that they are pursuing foreclosure only to enforce

the lien as the debt has been previously forgiven in bankruptcy this chain ofassignment is

critical to establish standing

48 Attorneys involved in the negotiation ofthe Consent Judgment are continuing

to rely on documents executed by robo-signor Jeffrey Stephan

49 Sufficient evidence exists that a remedy at law based on the facts can not be

established and will result in costlytime consuming state litigation and therefore I request in the

best interest of the Debtors estate creditors and other parties of interest this motion be denied


50 The potential conflict may also be present if BABC andor its partners havehad

been involved as legal counselor other advisory capacity in the independent foreclosure review

process that is currently being conducted as part ofthe OCC consent order whether in a

capacity ofdirect engagement or as a subcontractor to a flfm that is engaged To avoid

impartiality this information should be disclosed

51 My limited objection was filed pursuant to sections 327 and 328 ofthe

Bankruptcy Code only to inform the court ofdevelopments that the court may not be capable of

anticipating at the time of making a fee arrangement determination that need to be considered to

avoid any adverse impact

PROPOSED COMPROMISE

52 A compromise is required that is in the best interest ofthe Debtors estate their

creditors and other parties of interest At the same time compliance with obligation under the

Judgment Order is a requirement that needs to be weighed by the court to ensure BABC is not

placed in a position where loyalties are questioned

A Reinstatement ofthe automatic stay for my particular foreclosure action as

violations ofthe AprilS 2012 order have been alleged and need to be promptly

addressed

B Request the court refer this action to the Circuit court which retains jurisdiction over

the enforcement actions (Case 112-CV -00361-RMC in US District Court for the

District ofColumbia)


C Request at a minimum that findings of such review be shared with the office of

Florida Attorney General (pam Bondi) and Florida Office of Financial Regulation

(Tom Grady)

D Establish future guidelines to avoid this unintended consequence as it relates to other

similarly situated homeowners

E Provide for relief in accordance with the Tiers established in Order (Dkt No 774]

The above are in the best interest ofthe Debtors Estate their creditors and other parties of

interest

53 An opportunity exists today to immediately deal with an unintended consequence

ofthe Consent Judgment in an equitable manner The issues have created a mess in the Court

Systems which is being addressed through the Consent Order and Judgment Order An

equitable solution needs to be obtained for this group to the extent possible to avoid future costly

litigation

54 In light of the recently signed Consent Judgment such actions would be prudent

at this stage as measures are being put in place to put accountability back into the system thus

protecting the integrity ofthe legal system

55 I have a fiduciary duty to bring this issue to the courts attention as continuance of

litigation ofactions based on incomplete andor inaccurate documents is continuing a fraud on

the court ifdone by a legal firm that is fully aware ofthe extent and severity of these past

misconducts

56 My situation is unique in that if the system had worked properly I would not be

here today as my home would have sold via a 363 sale with additional funds for 2nd lien holders


57 This compromise is in the best interest ofthe estate as it avoids potentially costly

litigation originating from a possible violation ofautomatic stay in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case

and appears to have continued to further a fraud on both the bankruptcy and state court system

58 Although I am not an attorney I have an obligation to report potential abuses to

avoid further on how other less fortunate homeowners get treated who do not have the will

power or means to pursue fairness in the protection ofa Constitutional Right The Consent

Judgment provides an excellent avenue to remove a black cloud that has been crippling this

country creating significant emotional stress and turmoil

Patrick J Hopper clo 220 McCartney Dr Moon Twp Pa 15108 Telephone (239) 293~0432 pjhgmacbkgmai1com (preferred contact)

~g~) J )88

County ofttUt1Il(4f)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA--------shyNotarial Seal Michelle K OBosky Notary Public Bet~el Park Bo(o

My Commission


EXHIBIT A

12-12020-mg Doc 940-1 Filed 073012 Entered 073112 094802 Exhibit Amended Verified Complaint to Foreclosure Mortgage Pg 1 of 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v

PATRICKJ HOPPER KELLY L HOPPER ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY THROUGH UNDER AND AGAINST THE HEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE WHETEHR SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CIAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES HEIRS DEVISEES GRANTEES OR OTHER CLAIMANTS MONTEREY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INC MONTEREY MASTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC HENRICKS JEWELRY INC RICHARD H GRIMES CITIBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FKJA CITIBANK FEDERAL SA VINGS BANK John Doe and Jane Doe AS UNKNOWN TENANTS IN POSSESSION

Defendants

AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE

The Plaintiff GMAC MORTGAGE LLC sues the Defendants named in the caption

hereof amends its Complaint previously filed in this action to read in its entirety as follows and

alleges

1 This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property located in Collier

County Florida

2 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein


3 On June 282004 Patrick 1 Hopper and Kelly L Hopper executed and delivered

an Adjustable Rate Note in the original principal amount of $47920000 (the Note) and a

Mortgage (the Mortgage) securing payment of the same The Note was payable to the order of

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc and the Mortgage was made with and to Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc as a nominee for GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc The

Mortgage was recorded in Official Records Book 3597 Page 3270 of the PubI1c Records of

Collier County Florida and mortgaged the property described therein (the Property) which

Property was then owned by and in possession of said mortgagors A copy of the Note is

attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof A copy of the Mortgage induding a

description of the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof

4 As of the date of the filing of the Complaint in this action Plaintiff was in

possession of the Note duly endorsed in blank and the Mortgage as servicer for the owner and

Plaintiff is the person entitled to enforce the Note and the Mortgage Following the filing of the

Complaint in this action Plaintiff deposited the original ink~signed Note with the Clerk of the

Court

5 On infonnation and belief Defendant Patrick J Hopper now owns the Property

6 There has been a default under the Note and the Mortgage in that the payment due

on May 12009 and all subsequent payments have not been made Plaintiff has declared the full

amount owed under the Note and the Mortgage to be now due

7 All conditions precedent to the filing ofthis action have been satisfied

8 There is now due owing and unpaid to Plaintiff under the Note and the Mortgage

as of the date of the filing of this Amended Complaint $47236101 in principal together with

interest from April 1 2009 late charges and a11 costs or collection including title search

2


expenses for ascertaining necessary parties to this action and reasonable attorneys fees

9 On or about November 5 2009 Defendant Patrick J Hopper obtained a discharge

under his Chapter 7 bankmptcy petition filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Middle District of Florida Case No 909-bk~12702-ALP Accordingly Plaintiff seeks only to

foreclose its interest in the subject Property and does not seek a money judgment against him

10 Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe may claim an interest in the Property

described in the Mortgage as tenants pursuant to a lease agreement either written or oraL Said

interest is subject subordinate and inferior to the lien of the Mortgage

11 In addition to all other named defendants the unknown spouses heirs devisees

grantees assignees creditors trustees successors in interest or other parties claiming an interest

in the subject Property by through under or against any of said defendants whether natural or

corporate who are not known to be alive or dead dissolved or existing are joined as defendants

herein The claims of any of said parties are subject subordinate and inferior to the lien of the

Mortgage

12 Defendant MONTEREY SfNGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD

ASSOCIATION INC is joined because it may claim some interest in or lien upon the subject

Property by virtue of possible association liens and assessments Said interest or lien is subject

subordinate and inferior to the lien of the Mortgage

13 Defendant MONTEREY MASTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC is joined

because it may claim some interest in or lien upon the subject Property by virtue of possible

association Hens and assessments Said interest or lien is subject subordinate and inferior to the

lien of the Mortgage

i 4 Defendant KELLY L HOPPER is joined because she may claim some interest in

3


or lien upon the subject Property by virtue )f a possib e homestead interest Said interest or lien

is subject subordinate and inferior to the lien of theMortgage

IS Defendant HENRICKS JEWELRY INC is joined because it may claim some

interest in or lien upon the subject Property by virtue of a JUDGMENT recorded in Official

Records Book 4474 at Page 1413 in the Public Records ofeollier County Said interest or lien is

inferior to the lien of the Mortgage

16 Defendant RICHARD H GRIMES is joined because he may claim some interest

in or lien upon the subject Property by virtue of a JUDGMENT recorded in Official Records

Book 3809 at Page 9Z9 in the Public Records of Collier County Such interest or lien is inferior

to the Hell of the Mortgage

17 Defendant CITTBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FIKJA CITIBANK

FEDERAL SAVINaS BANK is joined beca~ it may claim some interest in or lien upon the

subject property by virtue of a mortgage recorded iu Official Records Book 3809 at Page 929 in

the Public Records of CotHer County Such interest or lien is inferior to the lien of the Mortgage

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays as follows

A That this Court will take jurisdiction of this cause of action the subject

matter and the parties hereto

B That the Mortgage be foreclosed in accordance with the rules and

established practice of this Court and that said Property be sold to sa~isfY said Mortgage

C That this Court decree that the Mortgage and Plaintiffs inertest in the

Property is superior to any and all right title or interest therein of the Defendants or any person

or parties claiming by through or under them since theuro institution of this suit

D That all right title or interest in the Property of the Defendants or any

4


person claiming by through or under them be forever barred and foreclosed and

E That this Court grant such further and other relief in this cause as in its

discretion might be just and proper

Ff-A R CIV P 11l0(b) VERIFICATION

Under penalty of perjury I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts alleged

therein are true and correct to the best of

Bar No 0659665) Jose Dega (Florida Bar No 0088872) Ei~dl Arant Boult Cummings LLP 1819 Fifth Awnue North Birmingham AL 35203 Telephone (205) 521-8000 Facsimile (205) 521-8800

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

5


EXHIBIT B

12-12020-mg Doc 940-2 Filed 073012 Entered 073112 094802 Exhibit Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action Pg 1 of 25

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Case 09-11026- CA

Plaintiff vs

PATRICK J HOPPER et al

Defendant(s)

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ANDOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

TO FRAME DEFENDANTS PERMITTED RESPONSIVE PLEADING

COMES NOW defendant Patrick Hopper pro se and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure 1100(b) 1110(b) 12]0 (a) 1130 1140(b)(6) 1140(b)(7) and 1140(b)(123)

moves this Honorable Court for entry of an order dismissing the Amended Complaint filed in

this cause or alternatively pursuant to RULE 1140 (e) for a more definite statement because

the Plaintiffs failure to plead facts identifying itself renders the Amended Complaint

impermissibly vague and ambiguous prejUdicing Defendants ability to properly defend

In support thereof Defendant states

I MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

A Law

In ruling on a defendants motion to dismiss a trial court is limited to the four corners of

the Complaint and it must accept all the allegations in the Complaint as true see Lutz Lake Fern

Rd Neighborhood Groups Inc v Hillsborough County 779 So2d 380 383 (Fla 2d DCA


2000) However exhibits attached to a Complaint are a part ofthe Complaint See Bott v City

ofMarathon 949 So2d 295 (FIa 3rd DCA 2007) (when considering a motion to dismiss a trial

court is required to consider any exhibit attached to or incorporated in the pleading) See also

Harry Pepper amp Assoc Inc v Lasseter 247 So2d 736 (Fla 3rd DCA 1971) (stating in

considering a motion to dismiss the trial court was required to consider the exhibit attached

to and incorporated in the amended complaint and quoting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure

1130(b) providing that any exhibit attached to a pleading shall be considered a part thereof for

all purposes) As such an exhibit attached to a Complaint is a part of the Complaint and may

be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss Considering exhibits attached to a Complaint

does not violate the four comers rule Furthermore exhibits attached to a Complaint must

agree with the allegations of the Complaint and where to two do not agree the exhibits control

See also Geico Gen Ins Co V Graci 849 So2d 1196 (FlaApp 4 Dist 2003) and Ginsberg v

Lennar Fla Holdings Inc 645 So2d 490 494 (Fla 3rd DCA 1994) (where exhibits contradict

complaint allegations plain meaning of the exhibits control) Harry Pepper amp Associates v

Lasseter 247 So2d 736 (FlaApp 3 Dist 1971) and see Hit Application Sys v Hartford Life

381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part

Fla R Civ P 1140 (b) DEFENSES (b) How Presented Every defense in law or fact to a claim for relief in a pleading shall be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required but the following defenses may be made by motion at the option of the pleader (1) lack ofjurisdiction over the subject matter (2) lack ofjurisdiction over the person (3) improper venue (4) insufficiency ofprocess (5) insufficiency of service of process (6) failure to state a cause of action and (7) failure to join indispensable parties A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted

Fla R Civ P 1140 (e) DEFENSES (e) Motion for More Definite Statement - Ifa pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading that party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired Ifthe motion is granted and the order ofthe court is


not obeyed within 10 days after notice ofthe order or such other time as the court may fix the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just

Fla R Civ Pl210 PARTIES (a) Parties Generally Every action may be prosecuted in the name ofthe real party in interest but a personal representative administrator guardian trustee of an express trust a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit ofanother or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that persons own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought

Fla R Civ P 1130 ATTACHING COpy OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND EXHIBITS (a) Instruments Attached All bonds notes bills of exchange contracts accounts or documents upon which action may be brought or defense made or a copy thereof or a copy ofthe portions thereof material to the pleadings shall be incorporated in or attached to the pleading No papers shall be unnecessarily annexed as exhibits The pleadings shall contain no unnecessary recitals of deeds documents contracts or other instruments

(b) Part for All Purpose Any exhibit attached to a pleading shall be considered a part thereof for all purposes Statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different part of the same pleading in another pleading or in any motion

The function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the

sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action Connolly v Sebco Inc 89 So 2d 482

(Fla 1956) For the purpose of a motion to dismiss the Court is required to accept as true all

well~pleaded allegations of the complaint Brown v First Federal Savings and Loan 160 So2d

556 (Fla 1 st DCA 1964) The pleading must be construed against the pleader in determining

whether the necessary allegations have been stated Matthews v Matthews 122 So 2d 571

(Fla2d DCA 1960)

B Argument - Failure to State a Cause of Action

1 Plaintiff appears to have pled its Amended Complaint in compliance with

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Form 1944 Mortgage Foreclosure Plaintiff alleges in

Amended Complaint at ~3 The note was payable to Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc


and the mortgage was made with and to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc as

nominee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc

2 Form 1944 requires that Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage

Florida rules of Civil Procedure section 121O(a) provides Every action may be prosecuted in

the name ofthe real party in interest The obligation of an issuer of a note owes that

obligation to a person entitled to enforce the instrument or to an indorser who paid the instrument

under Florida Statutes sect 6734151 (sect 6734121 Fla Stat (2009)) A person may be a person

entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is

in wrongful possession of the instrument

3 Plaintiff pursuant to Florida Supreme Court sect 6733011 Fla Stat (2011)

without specifically so stating al1eges that it is now entitled to enforce Note and Mortgage

Amended Complaint at ~4

4 Plaintiff further alleges in Amended Complaint at ~6 that there is a default

under the Note and the Mortgage which complies with Form 1944 For plaintiff to make such

allegation Plaintiff would need to be considered a holder in due course pursuant to sect 6733011

Fla Stat (2011) provided under section 1 (a) (1) (a)

The holder in due course means the holder of an instrument if the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity and the holder took the instrument for value in good faith without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment ofanother instrument as part of the same series+ 6733021 Fla Stat (2009)


5 Fla R Civ P 111 O(b) requires in pertinent part that a pleading shall contain (2)

a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

(Bold- emphasis added) As Florida is a factpleading jurisdiction Deloitte amp Touche v Gencor

Industries Inc 929So2d 678 681 (Fla 5 th DCA 2006) state pleadings are required to state a

cause of action or a legal defense The Third District Court of Appeal held that A party does not

properly allege a cause of action by alleging in conclusive form which tracks the language of the

statute acts which lack factual allegations and merely state bare legal conclusions Ginsburg v

Lennar Fla Holdings Inc 645 So2d 490 501 (Fla3d DCA 1994)

6 Rule Civil Procedure 1130 requires that documents sued upon be attached to the

Complaint Florida legal Statutes 70102 specifically deals with Assignment not effectual

against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of document An assignment of a

mortgage upon real property or of any interest therein is not good or effectual in law or

equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without

notice unless the assignment is contained in a document that in its title indicates an

assignment of mortgage and is recorded according to law

7 In the instant case Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint has failed to allege any

facts establishing that it may be deemed a person entitled to enforce an instrument The

Plaintiff has failed to attach documentation showing it has the right to proceed with this action

against the Defendant as Required by Rule Fla R Civ P 1130

8 Specifically while the Amended Complaint asserts that GMAC

MORTGAGE LLC is the Plaintiff Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how it acquired the rights as


----------------~

servicer The copy of the note attached to the Amended Complaint shows that another entity

Greenpoint Mortgage is in fact entitled to pursue causes of action against the note The

Plaintiff has failed to introduce any evidence in support of its right to proceed as the real party in

interest on the note (or mortgage) while the exhibits attached to the Amended Complaint show

clearly that another party is entitled to proceed on the note count within the four comers rule

Furthermore exhibits attached to a Complaint must agree with the allegations of the Complaint

and where they do not agree the exhibits control See Geico Gen Ins Co V Graci 849 So2d

1196 (Fla App 4 Dist 2003) and Ginsberg v Lennar Fla Holdings Inc 645 So2d 490494

(Fla 3rd DCA 1994) (where exhibits contradict complaint allegations plain meaning of the

exhibits control) See also Harry Pepper amp Associates v Lasseter 247 So2d 736 (Fla App 3

Dist 1971) and Hit Application Sys v Hariford Life 381 So2d 294 (Fla App 1 Dist 1980)

9 As described above the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to contain

sufficient facts to establish who the Plaintiff is or the Plaintiffs relationship to this Defendant

or the Plaintiff s relationship or connection to the claim for foreclosure of a promissory note or

mortgage including Plaintiffs failure to identify any endorsement of the note to the Plaintiff nor

any other documentation establishing the Plaintiff as having authority to act as the real and

beneficial party of interest at the time of filing the Amended Complaint

1O Although some purported assignment of mortgage does exist in this case and

Defendant has challenged the accuracy of such document no such assignment has been

referenced or attached to amended pleading Fla R Civ P l130(a) provides in pertinent part

All bonds notes bills of exchange contracts accounts or documents upon which action may

- -


be brought or defense made or a copy thereof material to the pleadings shall be incorporated in

or attached to the pleading (Emphasis Added)

11 Florida precedent is clear A claimants standing to bring an action is distinct

from questions arising from the claimants noncompliance with one or more conditions

precedent to maintaining the action Progressive Express Insurance Company v McGrath

Community Chiropractic 913 So2d 1284 (pIa 2nd DCA 2005) To make the rule perfectly clear

as regards to assignments and their importance to creating standing the Second District Court of

Appeal plainly states Thus the assignment is not merely a condition precedent to

maintain an action on a claim held by lhe person or entity who filed the lawsuit Rather it

is the basis of the claimants standing to invoke the processes ofthe court in theftrst place

(Bold and Emphasis Added) Progressive Express Insurance Co v McGrath Community

Chiropractic 913 So 2d 1281 1285 (Fla 2d DCA 2005)

12 Florida law requires proofthat the conditions precedent are met at the time the

Complaint is filed All notes or documents upon which action may be brought material to

the pleadings shall be incorporated in or attached to the pleading Fla R Civ P 1130(a)

13 Consequently yet again the Plaintiff in the present mortgage foreclosure case-shy

through its failure to attach an assignment or for that matter the uninterrupted series or trail of

Assignments or some other proofofpurchase ofthe debt has failed to show that as a threshold

matter it has standing to bring its suit against Defendant and without standing any four

comers argument Plaintiff may attempt is moot and its claim must fail as a matter oflaw


(A) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action

with Prejudice for failure to state a cause of action

C Argument - Failure to join indispensable -Greenpoint

Anyone whose presence in the case as a party is necessary to a complete resolution of all

the material issues in the case is an indispensable party Failure to join an indispensable party to

a lawsuit is grounds for dismissal

14 Plaintiff is seeking to foreclose under relief granted in Defendants bankruptcy

case 909-bk-12702 as GMAC Mortgage LLC as Servicing Agent for HSBC bank USA

National Association as Trustee for SEQMT 2004-8 and its Successors andor Assigns

(Secured Creditor)

15 Such relief was granted based on documentation that did not include an

assignment did include the mortgage attached to the Amended Complaint however included

Note certified as This is a True amp Certified Copy of the Original Such note does not include a

loan number on the face and furthermore does not include an allonge reflecting an endorsement

in blank which was not produced to this court until April 22 2010 4 months after the filing of

this action

16 Plaintiff makes no mention of these parties anywhere in the Amended

Complaint or fails to clearly show how Plaintiff obtained its rights to foreclose


17 Plaintiff has attached to its Amended Complaint a copy of the Mortgage

identit)Ting Greenpoint Mortgage as the lender MERS as lenders nominee and an original note

that now contained a endorsement in blank provided 4 months after commencement of action

18 As Plaintiff has failed to show how it obtained its rights or on whose behalf

Greenpoint Mortgage is an indispensable party as it is party to the agreement signed with

Defendant acting as both original servicer and original note holder thus a critical party

(8) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action with

Prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party Greenpoint Mortgage

D Argument - Failure to join indispensable -MERS

Additionally MERS is an indispensable party and is party to the agreement signed with

Defendant

19 MERS serves as legal title holder in a nominee capacity permitting lenders to sell

their interests in the notes and servicing rights to investors without recording each transaction

MERS has no independent right to collect on any debt because MERS itself has not extended

credit and none of the mortgage debtors owe MERS any money

20 The MERS system was created to facilitate the transfer of ownership interests and

servicing rights in mortgage loans


21 MERS is an online system that currently reflects Redwood Trust Inc as the owner

of the note withGMAC Mortgage as the servicer

22 The primary role ofMERS is to hold legal title track transfer of title in equity

throughout a securitization process for the ultimate benefit of Defendant upon full satisfaction of

loan through the release of a clear and marketable title Therefore MERS has a fiduciary duty to

Defendant to ensure protection of marketable title ofthe third part beneficiary

A fiduciary relation in law is ordinarily synonymous with a confidential relation It is founded upon the trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another and likewise precludes the idea of profit or advantage resulting from the dealings of the parties and the person in whom the confidence is reposed

23 MERS has voluntarily inserted itself in a trust position of protecting and tracking

Title transfers a role that historically was provided through the creation of a county property

recording system MERS goal was to streamline the established process enabling the

advancement of securitization of mortgages while protecting the Borrower as a final 3rd party

beneficiary ensuring clear and marketable title upon full satisfaction

24 Historically each county in the United States has maintained records of who

owns the land within Communities and have elected county recorders to provide an important

democratic check and balance in the preservation ofproperty rights Such process was


established to provide a transparent record of all land ownership Such county recorders act as

custodians of property rights

bailee (custodian) n a person with whom some article is left usually pursuant to a contract (called a contract ofbailment) who is responsible for the safe return ofthe article to the owner when the contract is fulfilled

25 The Florida Constitution acknowledges this trust placed in public officials and is

specifically addressed under Section 5 of the Florida Constitution requiring an oath of office

(b) Each state and county officer before entering upon the duties ofthe office shall give bond as required by law and shall swear or affirm I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and ofthe State ofFlorida that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of(title ofoffice) on which I am now about to enter So help me God

26 To further strengthen this trust and attempts to avoid conflicts of interest in

Section 5 of the Florida Constitution when it states

No person shall hold at the same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and municipalities therein except that a notary public or military officer may hold another office and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission taxation and budget reform commission constitutional convention or statutory body having only advisory powers

27 Finally as not a single state legislature or appellate court had authorized this

change in real property recording utilizing the MERS system MERS should be required to

protect Homeowners Florida Constitutional Rights specifically as it relates to

SECTION 2 Basic rights and the right to acquire possess and protect property

SECTION 24 Access to public records and meetings and the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body officer or employee ofthe state or persons acting on their behalf except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution

SECTION 8 Ethics in government-A public office is a public trust The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse


28 The role ofMERS is not that of a lender but a position of trust historically

ensured by County Recorder Offices protecting property ownership rights

29 Supporting this position that MERS is not a lender can best be seen in MERS

arguments in 2005 Neb LEXIS 177270 Neb 529 704 NW2d 784 Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems Inc appellant v Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance appellee

MERS when claining it is not a lender made the following arguments

it does not acquire mortgage loans and is therefore not a mortgage banker under sect 45shy702(6) because it only holds legal title to members mortgages in a nominee capacity and is contractually prohibited from exercising any rights with respect to the mortgages (Le foreclosure) without the authorization of the members

Further MERS argues that it does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments made on the notes MERS explains that it merely immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur

sect 45-705(1) Section 45-702(6) defines mortgage banker as any person not exempt under section 45-703 who for compensation or gain or in the expectation of compensation or gain directly or indirectly makes originates services negotiates acquires sells arranges for or offers to make originate service negotiate acquire sell or arrange for ten or more mortgage loans in a calendar year

30 Florida Statute supports the importance of protecting another persons title to real

property from impairment Statute sect 69710 and states

Liability for error in mortgage deed or note-In any action relating to real property if the court shall find that any person has prepared an instrument which due to an inaccurate or improper legal description impairs another persons title to real property the court may award to the prevailing party all costs incurred by her or him in such action including reasonable attorneys fees and in addition thereto may award to the prevailing party all actual damages that she or he may have sustained as a result of such impairment of title


31 Furthennore per the Mortgage Agreement attached to the Amended Complaint

under Transfer of Rights MERS takes on a fiduciary duty to borrower and is established in the

following wording

Borrower understands and agrees MERS hold only legal title to the interest granted by borrower in this security instrument (emphasis added)

32 In a trust there is a division of ownership between the equitable title (who

receives the benefit of the items) in the beneficiary and legal title (who owns or manages the

item for the beneficiary) in the trustee The key concept is creation of a fiduciary relationship by

separating ownership into two parts legal title in a trustee with management duties and

equitable title in a beneficiary who can enforce those duties

33 MERS immobilizes Legal Title enabling the mortgage to follow the note in a

securitization transaction Equitable Title while simultaneously providing protections for the

homeowner of a marketable title upon full satisfaction of the loan Legal and Equitable Title

at which point no trust would exist

34 The above structure if fully complied with enabled The mortgage to always

follow the note

35 If not properly complied with the above MERS structure provides risk of

separation ofmortgage from note causing irreparable hann resulting in a unsecured note

obligation without a perfected interest in the property


36 As Plaintiff is pursuing foreclosure against defendant not on the Note as such

obligation was discharged but on the underlying security MERS is a critical party to establish

standing

37 MERS is a indispensible and critical party to this action to determine how rights

have been transferred or sold

(C) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action with

Prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party MERS

E Argument - Failure to join indispensable -Redwood Trust Inc RWT

Additionally Redwood Trust Inc RWT is an indispensable party and is party to the

agreement signed with Defendant

38 The Mortgage Agreement attached to the Amended Complaint under Transfer

of Rights indicates MERS and Borrowers understanding as it relates to legal title in the security

interest

39 To provide for protection ofBorrowers constitutional rights related to access of

public records MERS implemented a new feature of its internet webpage servicer identification

system that allows borrowers to inquire as to the identity of a loans investor See MERS expands Website To

Disclose Loan Investor Informalion MERS (July 1620 I 0) httpwwwmcrsiucorgncwsromnlilress detailsaspxjd=241


40 A online search conducted by Defendant ofMERS records as of July 23 2012

continue to indicate GMAC as servicer has obtained its rights form the owner Redwood Trust

Inc

MIN 1000138-0084378587-0 Note Dat 06282004 Servfcer GMAC Mortgage LLC

WaterlooIA Serllcer GMAC Mortgage LLC

Waterloo IA Investor RedWood Trust Inc

(D) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action with

Prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party Redwood Trust Inc

F Argument - Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter

GMAC Mortgage filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection In re Residential Capital LLC

Case No 12-12020 (MG) United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District ofNew York

41 On July 132012 United States Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn signed an order

shown as Court Docket 744 July 132012 which included in part

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER (III) GRANTING LIMITED STAY RELIEF TO

PERMIT FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION PROCEEDINGS

httpwwwkecllenetdocuments 121202011212020120713000000000011 pdf

42 The Court order specifically addressed Foreclosures on Senior Loans

The stay imposed by section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code applicable to pending and future foreclosure actions initiated by the Debtors in cases where they act as servicer for the Senior Loan and also (b) the Debtors shall be entitled to take such actions as are necessary to extinguish the lien with respect to a Junior Loan or to otherwise ensure clear and marketable title with respect to the property underlying a Senior Loan in connection with any sale or other disposition of such property (Emphasis added)


43 The order pennits continuation of existing litigation as business as nonnal

shy

provided in compliance with the other relief as identified below

44 The Court order further provided for Other Relief specifically related to

compliance with recent settlements and orders

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary this Order shall not modify or affect the terms and provisions of nor the rights and obligations under (a) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Consent Order dated April 132011 by and among AFI Ally Bank ResCap GMA C Mortgage LLC the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (b) the consent judgment entered AprilS 2012 by the District Court for the District of Columbia dated February 9 2012 (c) the Order of Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty Issued Upon Consent Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act as amended dated February 10 2012 and (d) all related agreements with AFI and Ally Bank and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates

45 The consent judgment entered April 52012 with the Florida Attorney General

(Case 1 12-CV-00361-RMC in US District Court for the District of Columbia) include such

critical requirements in the consent judgment stating

bull This court retains jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Judgment to enforce its tenns

bull Servicing Standards - Defendant shall comply with the Servicing Standards bull Nothing in this consent judgment shall relieve Defendant of its obligation to

comply with applicable state and federal law

46 For this court to have jurisdiction a condition precedent would be proof of

compliance with the tenns of the order specifically Servicing Standards (Exhibit A) and more

specifically steps needed to be taken to ensure compliance with A Standards for Documents

Used in Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Proceedings which is designed

bull to ensure that factual assertions made in pleadings (complaint counterclaim cross-claim answer or similar pleadings) bankruptcy plooftmiddot ofclaim (including any facts provided by Service or based on il1formation provided by the ServiceI that are included in any attachment and submitted to establish the truth ofsuch facts) (poe j that are designed to take appropriate action consistent with state andfederallaw and court procedure to substitute such POC with an amended POC as promptv as


-

reasonably practicable (and in any event not more than 30 days) after acquiring actual knowledge (d such material inaccuracy and provide appropriate written notice to the borrower or borrower I counsel

bull re(ving on qlJidavit ofindebtedness or similar ajJidavit sworn statement or Declarationfiled in a pending prejudgment judiciaforeclosure or bankruptcy proceeding which (a) was required to be based on the ajJiant I review andpersonal knowledge of its accuracy but was not (b) was not when so required properly notarized or (c) contained materially inaccurate information in order to obtain a judgment offoreclosure order ofsale relieffrom the automatic stay or other reliein banlinptcy

bull In pending cases in which such affidavits sworn statements or Declarations may have beenflled Servicer shall at Servicer I expense take appropriate action consistent with state andfederallaw and court procedure to substitute such qffidavits with new qifidavits and provide appropriate written notice to the borrower or borrowers counsel

47 Although the judgment was just signed on April 5 2012 the judgment does

provide address implementation timeline in Exhibit E of the judgment for enforcement tenns

(attached as Exhibit B) along with the judgment itself (Exhibit C)

48 Such implementation time line states Servicer anticipates that it will phase in the

implementation of the Servicing Standards and Mandatory Relief Requirements (i) through (iv)

as described in Section Cl2 using a grid approach that prioritizes implementation based upon

(i) the importance of the servicing standards to the borrower and (ii) the difficulty of

implementing the service standard

49 For borrowers in foreclosure litigation the Servicing Standards that drive standing

are critical and is addressed under section A at 18

18 In all states Servicer shall send borrowers a statement setting forth facts supporting Servicers or holders right to foreclose and containing the information required in paragraphs IB6 (items available upon borrower request) IBl0 (account statement) 1C2 and IC3 (ownership statement) and IVB13 (loss mitigation statement) herein

50 Servicing Standard section B Requirements for Accuracy and Verification of

Borrowers Account Information at LB6 focuses on two key elements that Plaintiff has omitted


from Amended Complaint related to c) copies of any assignments of mortgage and most

importantly D) the name ofthe investor that holds the borrowers loan

In the statements described in paragraphs lA18 and mBla ServiceI shall notify borrowers that they may receive upon written request

c If Servicer has commenced foreclosure or filed a POC copies of any assignments of mortgage or deed oftmst required to demonstrate the right to foreclose on the borrowers note under applicable state law and

d The name of the investor that holds the borrowers loan (emphasis added)

51 This is further addressed in C Documentation of Note Holder Status and Chain of

Assignment and further stresses the importance of standing and relevance of assignment which

neither have been supported in theAmended Complaint

1 ServiceI shall implement processes to enSUle that ServiceI or the foreclosing entity has a documented enforceable interest in the promissory note and mortgage (or deed of trust) under applicable state law or is otherwise a proper party to the foreclosure action

2 Servicer shall include a statement in a pleading affidavit of indebtedness or similar affidavits in court foreclosure proceedings setting forth the basis for asserting that the foreclosing party has the right to foreclose

3 Servicer shall set forth the information establishing the partys right to foreclose as set forth in IC2 in a communication to be sent to the borrower as indicated in LA18

6 Servicer shall ensure that mortgage assignments executed by or on behalf of Servicer are executed with appropriate legal authority accurately reflective of the completed transaction and properly acknowledged

52 Plaintiffs counsel BABC LLP is very familiar with the requirements of the orders

and judgments issued against the Plaintiff and therefore compliance should not be expected but

required BABC LLC is requesting approval as special litigation and compliance counsel to

Plaintiff in its bankruptcy case and support thereof states in the Supplemental Declaration of

Robert R Maddox Docket 866


These cases are assigned to BABC based on their complexity and the higher potential for exposure to the Debtors These cases involve numerous causes of action including TILA HOEP A FDCP A FCRA RESP A RICO predatory lending mortgage related fees and services and state deceptive trade practice laws These matters are more complex than standard foreclosure proceedings which are handled by general foreclosure counsel

The Maddox Declaration and the Application also discussed BABCs representation of the Debtors with respect to the Consent Order by and among Ally Financial Inc (AFI) Ally Bank ResCap GMAC Mortgage LLC (GMACM) the Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the Consent Order) the consent judgment entered April 5 2012 by the District Court for the District of Columbia dated February 9 2012 (the Consent Judgment) and (c) all related agreements with the Debtors and their respective affiliates (the Related Agreements and together with the Consent Order and the Consent Judgment the Compliance Matters)

(E) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action for

lack ofjurisdiction over the subject matter

G Argument - Lack of Jurisdiction over the person

53 See arguments presented in F Argument - Lack of Jurisdiction over the

subject matter

(F) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action for

lack ofjurisdiction over the person

H Argument - Improper Venue


subject matter

(G) WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests the Court Dismiss this action for

Improper Venue


REQUEST FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Should the Court not dismiss this action as is being requested it is further requested that

Plaintiff furnish Defendant with a More Definite Statement setting forth 1) under which branch

ofFs sect6733011 it intends to proceed 2) the specific ultimate facts by which it intends to prove

this allegation The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out

the defects complained of and the details desired

All the arguments made in relation to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing as

presented above specifically A - H support the need for a more Definite Statement

I Argument - More Definite Statement

A critical issue that must be investigated in this cause is the question ofwhether Plaintiff

(andlor some other owner as this is not made clear) has standing to sue in this matter Without

knowledge ofthe basic grounds upon which Plaintiff intends to proceed Defendant is unable to

frame a proper responsive pleading whether it be a motion to dismiss on standing grounds or

appropriate affirmative defenses

55 ~ 5 Line 1 Conclusory language without supporting facts fails to state a claim

Plaintiff claims it is the owner of the note (Amended Complaint at ~ 5) That claim is

inconsistent with the Note attached which indicates another party owns it The inconsistent

allegations require more specific pleading A party does not state a cause of action by merely

reciting legal conclusions or tracking statutory language but must include factual allegations

Gimbergv Lennar Fla Holdings Inc 645 So2D490 501(Fla3dDCA 1 994)Becerra v Equity Im[XJrts

551 So2d 486 487-88 (Fla3d DCA 1989) Failure to state sufficient factual allegations


--

therefore requires dismissal of the claim FlaRCivP 1140(e) states that if a pleading to which a

responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be

required to frame a responsive pleading that party may move for a more definite statement

before interposing a responsive pleading

56 Motions for More Definite Statement are governed by Rule 1140 (e) Fla R Civ

P which states If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or

ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading that party

may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading The motion

shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired If the motion is granted and the

order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or such other time as the

court may fix the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such

order as it deems just Fla R Civ P 1140 (e) Where a Complaint is vague or ambiguous a

motion for more definite statement is the proper avenue to seek redress Foerman vSeaboard

Coast Line R Co 279 So2d 825 (1973) Wajay Bakery Inc v Carolina Freight Carriers

Corp 177 So2d 544 (Fla 3rd DCA 1965) Patton v Carlson 132 So2d 793 (Fla 1 st DCA

1961)

57 The Amended Complaint addresses and changes issues raised in Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment that was never heard by this court prior to granting Plaintiffs

leave to amend (b) Effect of Admission Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively

established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission


---

9 Please admit that GMACM in its original filing did not inform the court Defendant filed for bankruptcy protection in case 809-bk-12702 (Exhibit A) OBJECTION Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous

19 Please admit the original affidavit filed by GMACM dated Feb 12010 (Exhibit E) in support ofsummary judgment filed April 7 2010 inaccurately represented GMACM as owner of the note RESPONSE Deny

8 Please admit that Plaintiff through counsel David Stern filed a foreclosure action on or about December 28 2009 case 09-11026-CA and claims Plaintiff GMACM both owns and holds the Note and Mortgage (Count 1 line 5 of the complaint) OBJECTION Plaintiff objects to this request as it is compounded

58 In discovery and admission an evasive or incomplete answer is consider a failure

to answer Such open evasive answers under Fla R Civ P RULE 1380 FAILURE TO MAKE

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS are related

OBJECTION Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous

2 Please admit that in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-8 Loan Number 0084378587 with an original loan balance of $479200 is the note subject to this complaint (Exhibit B)

14 Please admit that the GMACM employee Jeffrey Stephan was at work in Montgomery County P A on December 31 2009

15 Please admit that the Witness Laura Craft and Notary Heather Reinhart both signed in the presence ofJeffrey Stephan on December 31 2009

16 Please admit that GMACM Mortgage acquired ownership ofthe note prior to filing foreclosure

59 Applying the foregoing principles of law and procedure to the facts in the case

sub judice the issue before us is whether the complaint under attack contains sufficient

allegations to make out a prima facie case for relief and to acquaint the court and respondent

with respondents alleged wrongdoing to the extent necessary to enable the respondent to

intelligently answer and defend itself


-

60 FlaRCivP 1140(e) states that if a pleading to which a responsive pleading is

pennitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a

responsive pleading that party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a

responsive pleading

61 A critical issue that must be investigated in this cause is the question of whether

Plaintiff (andor some other owner as this is not made clear) has standing to sue in this matter

Without knowledge of the basic grounds upon which Plaintiff intends to proceed Defendant is

unable to frame a proper responsive pleading whether it be a motion to dismiss on standing

grounds or appropriate affinnative defenses

(H) WHEREFORE DEFENDANT moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order

requiring Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 1140 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to provide a more

definite statement

(I) WHEREFORE DEFENDANT moves this Honorable Court to further enter an Order

requiring Plaintiff to fully comply with the Judgment order as a condition precedent

(J) WHEREFORE DEFENDANT moves this Honorable Court to further enter an

Order requiring Plaintiff to compel discovery

(K) WHEREFORE DEFENDANT moves this Honorable Court to further enter an

Order for sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff Counsel


(L) WHEREFORE DEFENDANT moves this Honorable Court to further enter an

Order for sanction to be imposed against Plaintiff Counsel for continuing a fraud on the court

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the parties identified in the July 9 2012 order Granting Amended Complaint this twenty third day ofJuly 2012 via US Mail postage prepaid

Respectfully submitted

By _____________ Patrick Hopper 220 McCartney Dr Moon Twp Pa 15108 239-293-0432

Jose D Vega (Florida Bar No 88872) via email w attachments and post wlo Brian ODell (Florida Bar No 0659665) via email w attachments Christian W Hancock (Florida Bar No 643521) via email with attachments Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 1819 Birmingham Al 35203

GMAC Mortgage I Ally Financial Inc wlo attachment Mr Daniel Soto ChiefCompliance Officer 440 South Church Street Charlotte NC 28202

Monterey Single Family Neighborhood Association Inc (wo attachments) Monterey Master Owners Association Inc CIO Southwest Property Management Corp Registered Agent 1044 Castello Drive Suite 206 Naples FL 34103

Unknown Tenants (wo attachments) 2116 Mission Drive Naples FI 34109


July 272012

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 272012 I served the Special Service List by email ifprovided and others via first class United States the

Pam Bondi Florida Attorney General The Capital PL-Ol Tallahassee Fl 32399

Tom Grady Florida OFR 200 E Gaines Street The Fletcher building Suite 118 Tallahassee FI 32399

Howard Seife hseifechadboumecom

Joseph Smith Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight 301 Fayetteville St Suite 1801 Raleigh NC 27601







----------------------------------------------------------------J(










BACKGROUND



JUl 3 Q 2012

COUi1T YOnK
















that is adverse








documents









































exist






















Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement
























----------------------------------------------------------------J(










BACKGROUND



JUl 3 Q 2012

COUi1T YOnK
















that is adverse








documents









































exist






















Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

































that is adverse








documents









































exist






















Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


























































exist






















Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


































exist






















Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

































Fargo CIS link


















standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




























standing




judgment
























































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement
































































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement








































FRAUD ON THE COURT







1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement
























1989)














interest







matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





















matter















or lack thereof)












securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

























securitization etc




Judgment























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




























PROPOSED COMPROMISE







addressed







(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





















(Tom Grady)





interest





litigation







misconducts













~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




























~g~) J )88



My Commission


EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















EXHIBIT A



CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




















CASE NO 09-11026

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

Plaintiff

v


Defendants




alleges


County Florida

















Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

































Court









2















Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement
































Mortgage










3

























4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement










































4










5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



























5


EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















EXHIBIT B





Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement






















Plaintiff vs


Defendant(s)












A Law




















381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


































381 So2d 294 (FlaApp 1 Dist 1980)















(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





























(Fla2d DCA 1960)














































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



























































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement









































----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















----------------~






















- -
































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

















































(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




























(Secured Creditor)






this action














Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





























Defendant























































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


































































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


















































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement


































following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





















following wording












follow the note







standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





















standing










interest








Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement





















Inc


















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




















shy

















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















-










































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement











































subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement

























subject matter





subject matter


Improper Venue
























--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement









































--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















--
















1961)






---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















---


















-




responsive pleading








definite statement



















-




responsive pleading








definite statement




























