Third Amended Complaint From Pacer

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 1 of 48
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 0:10-Civ-61296-Altonaga/Brown IGNACIO DAMIAN FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MERSCORP, INC., LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.; DAVID J. STERN, individually; AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CCO MORTGAGE CORPORATION; CHASE HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION; CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CORINTHIAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY; FANNIE MAE; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION; FREDDIE MAC; GMAC RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION; GUARANTY BANK; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION; MGIC INVESTOR SERVICES; MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONWIDE ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE COMPANY; PMI MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY; SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.; UNITED GUARANTY CORPORATION; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and WMC MORTGAGE CORP., Defendants. _________________________________________/ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Comes now the Plaintiff, Ignacio Damian Figueroa, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, and sues the Defendants, Merscorp, Inc.; the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.; David J. Stern; American Land Title Association; Bank of America, N.A.; CCO Mortgage Corporation; Chase Home Mortgage Corporation; CitiMortgage Inc.; Corinthian Mortgage Corporation; Everhome Mortgage Company; Fannie Mae; First American Title Insurance Corporation; Freddie Mac; GMAC Residential Funding Corporation; Guaranty Bank; HSBC Finance
Corporation; Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation; MGIC Investor Services; Mortgage Bankers Association; Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company; PMI Mortgage Insurance Company; Stewart Title Guaranty Company; Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.; United Guaranty Corporation; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and WMC Mortgage Corp., as follows: The Nature of the Action 1. This is an action for triple damages, costs and attorney fees under 18 U.S.C. 1962
and 1964, otherwise known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO. The Named Parties 2. Ignacio Damian Figueroa is the Plaintiff. He brings suit as Class Representative. He
has standing to sue in that capacity because he possesses the same interest and suffered the same type of injury as all other Class Members. 3. Defendant Merscorp, Inc., is a foreign corporation having its primary place of business in
Reston, Virginia. It asserts that it is the sole shareholder in an entity by the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS). MERS is the RICO enterprise. It was created for an illegal and fraudulent purpose and it has been largely successful in performing as intended by its creators. Its raison detre is to enable the conspirators to illegally obtain profits in a variety of ways as more fully explained in the sections of this Complaint to follow. The conspirators behind the MERS enterprise and artifice use MERS to disguise the true identities of lenders, loan originators, real parties in interest and of those proceeding against the mortgagors as plaintiffs in foreclosure actions which they have no legal right to bring. 4. The Defendant Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., (hereinafter the Defendant Firm or
the Stern Firm), is a professional association with its principal place of business in Plantation, Florida. The Defendant Firms attorneys primarily represent plaintiffs in foreclosure actions. Based upon
statements by its owner and co-Defendant, David J. Stern, the Defendant Firm in 2008 and 2009 filed between 4000 and 7000 new foreclosure actions in the State of Florida per month. Beginning in or about 1999, the Defendant Firm joined with Defendant Merscorp, Inc., and other conspirators in the fraudulent scheme and RICO enterprise herein complained of. The employees of the Defendant Firm, including many licensed attorneys, have become skilled in using the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers, and, over the past several years, have routinely relied upon MERS to do just that. 5. David J. Stern is an attorney licensed in Florida since 1991. He is the sole owner of the
Defendant Firm. He is responsible for its actions because he caused them, and also because attorneys and other professionals are not protected from liability arising from the practice of their professions by virtue of the fact that they practice through a professional association. 6. Defendant American Land Title Association is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 7. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 8. Defendant CCO Mortgage Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court.
9.
Defendant Chase Home Mortgage Corporation of the Southeast is a foreign corporate
entity which, according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 10. Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 11. Defendant Corinthian Mortgage Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 12. Defendant EverHome Mortgage Company is a foreign corporate entity which, according
to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 13. Defendant Fannie Mae is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 14. Defendant First American Title Insurance Corporation is a foreign corporate entity
which, according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it
conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 15. Defendant Freddie Mac is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 16. Defendant GMAC Residential Funding Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 17. Defendant Guaranty Bank is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 18. Defendant HSBC Finance Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 19. Defendant Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 20. Defendant MGIC Investor Services Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 21. Defendant Mortgage Bankers Association is a foreign corporate entity which, according
to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 22. Defendant Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company is a foreign corporate entity
which, according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 23. Defendant PMI Mortgage Insurance Company is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 24. Defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company is a foreign corporate entity which,
according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 25. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. is a foreign corporate entity which, according to
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court.
26.
Defendant United Guaranty Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which, according
to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 27. Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a foreign corporate entity which, according to As a national organization, it conducts substantial
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS.
business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 28. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a foreign corporate entity which, according to As a national organization, it conducts substantial
www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS.
business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. 29. Defendant WMC Mortgage Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which, according
to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it conducts substantial business in the State of Florida, and it is therefore appropriate that it be required to defend this suit in this Court. The Scheme to Defraud 30. In and about the years 1998 and 1999, at around the same time MERS and Merscorp, Inc.
took the form in which they exist today, the mortgage industry introduced new products into the American lending marketplace. These products included non-documentation loans and adjustable rate mortgages, known as ARMS. Mortgage lenders, acting in coordination with one another, relaxed their standards for lending, which made an entirely new class of lower-income individuals eligible to receive loans. This, in turn, drove up property values. As part and parcel of this scheme, banks and other
lenders accepted appraisals documenting the new, higher values, and approved millions of applications for financing which would normally have been declined. 31. Unbeknownst to the borrowers and the public, the billions of dollars spent to fund these
loans were expended to prime the pump. The big institutions and the conspirators were making an investment, but the expected return was NOT the interest they pretended to anticipate receiving as borrowers paid the mortgages. The lenders knew that the new loans were bad paper; this was of little concern to them because they intended to realize profits so great as to render such interest, even if it had been received, negligible by comparison. Part of the reason this fraudulent scheme has gone largely unnoticed for such an extended period of time is that its sophistication is beyond the imagination of average persons. Similarly beyond the imagination of most persons is and was the scope of the dishonesty of the lenders and those acting in furtherance of the scheme, including the present Defendants. 32. A lie about ones name or identity at the outset of a relationship strongly indicates the
speakers intention to do harm. Many such lies are present in the facts and occurrences giving rise to this case. The parties named as Lenders in the subject mortgages and notes in most cases were not in fact the lenders or true originators of the money used to fund the loans. MERS was and is used to allow servicers to pretend as if they are someone else: the owners of the mortgage, or the real parties in interest. In most instances they are not. The standard MERS/Stern complaint contains a lie about this very subject. While the title of the standard complaint makes reference to lost loan documents, in the body of the standard complaint, the Defendant Firm alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. Both cannot be true unless the words used are given new meanings. (Sample attached as Exhibit A). Sometime after March 13, 2008, but before February 12, 2009, the Defendant Firm changed the standard Complaint so that it now reads: Plaintiff, as servicer for the owner and acting on behalf of the owner with authority to do so, is the present
designated holder of the note and mortgage with authority to pursue the present action. Yet in this latest version, the Stern Firm also describes an assignment of the mortgage which has already occurred, with the assignee being the plaintiff in the case - - the same plaintiff who is simultaneously described as a designated holder who is acting on behalf of the owner. (Exhibit B). This is a contradiction: either the plaintiff is designated to act on behalf of the real party in interest, or it is itself the real party in interest pursuant to the alleged assignment. 33. In the years leading up to the introduction of the new loan products, the conspirators
laid the groundwork which would grow into a new mortgage lending infrastructure: a new paradigm in which the ratios of risk to reward were dramatically altered in favor of these monied interests and to the detriment of common consumers. One material bulwark in the support for this new paradigm was the inclusion in new mortgages of intentionally ambiguous and infinitely malleable provisions pertaining to MERS. As is the case with most of the written documents routinely used in the scheme, such as assignments and complaints for foreclosure, each word concerning MERS in these standardized mortgages is carefully crafted so as to allow those relying upon it to infinitely recede in their positions and to be moving targets virtually unreachable by standard legal means. The standard mortgage is a form entitled FLORIDA-Single Family- Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS, or some slight variation thereof. Upon reading the standard mortgage clauses pertaining to MERS, even persons of high intelligence will have a sense that they should, but do not quite, comprehend them. Consider these: MERS is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a1 nominee for Lender and2 Lenders successors and assigns. MERS is
1
This allows for another nominee; one which could apparently coexist with MERS.
2
Is being present tense, this seems to indicate that as of the time of execution of the mortgage, MERS was performing some unknown service for both lender and its successors and assigns even though ostensibly the mortgage had not as of execution been assigned. Upon assignment, it would seem to be impossible for MERS to act as nominee for the original lender. This phrase also tacitly 9
the mortgagee under this security instrument.3 MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 485012026, tel. (888)679-MERS. [....]
TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrowers covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purpose,4 Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns of MERS,5 the following described property located in the COUNTY of BROWARD.6 [....]
Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom,7 MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns) has the right to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property, and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument. (MERS mortgage and note are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit C).
acknowledges that the mortgage will be assigned.

3
No, it is not. Here is the definition of the term from the first available free Internet site, www.law.dictionary.com : mortgagee: n. the person or business making a loan that is secured by the real property of the person (mortgagor) who owes him/her/it money. There is no purpose stated in the preceding sentence. It would seem to be impossible for the borrower to simultaneously convey the property (1) to MERS as nominee for lender; (2) to MERS as nominee for lenders successors and assigns; and (3) to MERSs own successors and assigns? No assignment could have existed as of the moment the mortgage was executed by the borrowers, and if somehow same did exist, it should have been disclosed as a fundamental and material aspect of the transaction. If the assignment occurred prior to the mortgage, the mortgage itself is void because the lender had no interest to secure. A mortgage is not a conveyance of property by operation of Florida law. No law or custom could possibly necessitate action by MERS, as opposed to action by the original lender. 10
34.
Prior to the execution of the subject mortgages and notes, or immediately thereafter, the
true lenders, who were usually not named in the documents, sold the loans in secretive transactions of which the borrowers were not notified. The borrowers would receive only notices that the servicer of their loan had been changed. Whether or not these servicer changes corresponded with transfers of the true beneficial interests in the loans was not mentioned in the notices and has not been revealed through the present time. By constantly changing servicers on these loans, and by sending out ambiguous notices of such changes, the bankers behind the scenes cooperated in obscuring the truth as to who had the right to receive the proceeds of the loans, and to foreclose in the event of non-payment. The loans were grouped into pools and sold multiple times, thereby increasing profits for the wrongdoers. These securitized debt pools were sold on the stock market and elsewhere, and in this manner affected interstate commerce. The real parties in interest also in many instances collected mortgage insurance upon default. These sales and other means of obtaining compensation on the loans atomized the true beneficial interests therein such that no party would ever have the legal right to foreclose in the event of non-payment. Because of the MERS language in the mortgages, however, the conspirators correctly believed that they would nonetheless be able to foreclose despite their lack of legal right to do so. 35. Another part of the scheme was the use of words in ways inconsistent with their
traditional meanings, and the creation of new terms which could be used to blur important distinctions between parties and their interests. The revolutionary ways in which words were utilized all shared one characteristic: they made it more difficult to determine who had the right to receive and utilize for their own purposes the payments made on the loan by the borrower. For example, mortgagee began to have a meaning other than lender. Servicer arose to prominence and was and is used to further obscure important truths. Specifically, the servicer may or may not hold the true beneficial interest
11
in the mortgage, and the Defendants will NOT release any further information on the subject, whether it is requested in discovery in a foreclosure action or in any other context. 36. With the oversight of Defendant Merscorp and its principals, the MERS artifice and
enterprise evolved into an ultra-fictitious entity, which can also be understood as a metacorporation. To perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that to the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments. The conspirators set about to confuse everyone as to who owned what. They created a truly effective smokescreen which has left the public and most of the judiciary operating in the dark through the present time. 37. The mortgage crisis and resulting economic downturn with which the United States is
currently afflicted is the result of the scheme of which Plaintiff complains herein. 38. As the conspirators and present Defendants have long intended, certain important terms
in the mortgages and other legal documents are devolving into a state of meaninglessness. Even the names of the mortgage and lending institutions are tinkered with and interchanged so often that it is difficult to keep track of the constantly shifting parameters of the series of alleged mergers, assertions of subsidiary relationships, divisions, and the like with which the American economy and consumer populace are deluged in advertisements and mortgage documents. This is not some random trend which resulted from the mortgage crisis. It is, instead, just another tactic in the vast scheme which ultimately caused it. The end result of the continued obfuscatory actions is that the mortgages and associated documents come to mean whatever their proponents wish them to mean. 39. The conspirators sought to minimize or eliminate documentation which could later
potentially be used as evidence of their crimes. They did not want to pay the fees associated with recording mortgages and they did not want to be bothered with the trouble of keeping track of the originals. That is the significance of the word Electronic in Mortgage Electronic Registration
12
Systems, Inc. The conspirators, through this exceptionally sophisticated legerdemain, made over the American judicial systems long-honored requirements for mortgages and foreclosures to serve their own selfish interests and to minimize the possibilities of the victims obtaining any meaningful redress through the courts. They undermined long-established rights and sabotaged the judicial process itself by de-emphasizing the importance of, and eventually eliminating, troublesome documentation requirements. While conversion to electronic loan documentation will eventually be implemented, it is the People, by and through their elected representatives, who will ultimately bring about this transition through duly enacted legislation. The Creation and Use of Fraudulent Assignments 40. In the cases in which the Class Members asserted a standing defense, whether in
propria persona or through counsel, the Defendant Firm and Defendant Merscorp, Inc. relied upon MERS to obscure the truth and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure. If pressed on the
standing issue, the Defendant Firm would generate fraudulent assignments which, like all the other documents used to perpetuate the scheme from its inception, were intentionally ambiguous. (A collection of assignments created and filed by the Defendant Firm is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit D most are defective and/or fraudulent on their face; a few others are included for signaturecomparison purposes). In these remarkable instruments the following irregularities usually appeared: a) The assignor, MERS, had the same address as the assignee (the plaintiff); b) They were executed by a person having the title of Assistant Secretary; and c) the document would have an effective date well prior to the date upon which it was executed, so as to retroactively give standing to the plaintiff. 41. Persons performing document execution on a massive scale, who do not read the
documents, who are not employed by any institution having a beneficial interest in the subject mortgages, and who have no personal knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statements contained in
13
the assignments and other documents they execute have come to be known as robo-signers. Cheryl Samons of the Stern Firm is one such person. Since the filing of this lawsuit in July of 2010, it has come to light that robo-signers are a nationwide phenomenon. Thousands of bogus assistant secretaries and vice-presidents have been so designated pursuant to MERS corporate resolutions within the last five years. Even the corporate resolutions are themselves bogus, as there is no process for vetting candidates, and no meeting of the MERS Board occurs. Instead, each resolution is automatically generated upon receipt by MERS of an email from the foreclosure mill naming the persons to be awarded these official sounding offices. The executed resolutions are then returned to the requests in person or entity by email. So pervasive are these fraudulent practices that the FBI has now opened an investigation into whether mail or wire fraud has been committed by the banks and others. 42. The Defendants, by working in concert through, and in reliance upon, the use of the
MERS artifice, succeeded in obtaining final judgments of foreclosure against the Class Members and in favor of plaintiffs whose standing was nil, both substantively and technically. These final
judgments led to foreclosure sales pursuant to which the Class Members were dispossessed of their properties. While each case proceeded along different routes, depending on whether the homeowners attempted to defend on their own, hired counsel, or simply allowed default to be entered, the end result was the same: The Class Members were robbed of their properties. The RICO enterprise herein complained of was the proximate cause of these damages. 43. Defendant Merscorp, Inc. maintained (and is believed to still maintain) a relationship
with the Defendant Firm including written contracts and alleged corporate resolutions designed to assist the Defendant Firm in effectuating the goals of the criminal enterprise through use of the assignments. Attached hereto as composite Exhibit E are certain Agreement[s] for Signing Authority purporting to authorize Ms. Samons and other employees of the Defendant Firm to sign
14
legal documents as if they had actual authority to act for Merscorp, and as if Merscorp or MERS had any actual interest in the properties. The documents are examples of the relationship between MERS and the Stern Defendants, and they typify the Defendants sophisticated approach. By using one untruth to lay a foundation, and then utilizing additional lies to add to it, the Defendants sought to obtain acceptance for entire constructs of deceit designed to serve their illegal purposes. Exhibit E follows this blueprint: it establishes a false baseline and then adds on with new falsehoods. First of all, since Merscorp, Inc. at no time possessed any true beneficial interest in the properties, it could not dispose of them even if it acted on its own behalf because it had no interests to convey. The Agreement for Signing Authority presumes that it owns beneficial interests in the subject properties, and then purports to grant autonomy to an employee of the Defendant Firm to alienate its non-existent interests. Even if Merscorp, Inc., had actually owned some interest, execution of the assignments by employees of a law firm having no personal knowledge of the transactions described therein could not have, and cannot, attest to the veracity of the assignments or bestow sufficient trustworthiness on the documents to qualify them as legally competent evidence of standing to foreclose. Each and every final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of one of these Stern/MERS strawmen plaintiffs was obtained illegally and was proximately caused by overt acts in furtherance of the scheme, including RICO predicate acts as further described below. 44. Just like MERS, the assignments were meaningless shells designed to pull the wool
over the eyes of the judiciary and ease the burden upon the unknown real parties in interest. The practice of non-documentation can be seen as a common thread weaving all of the complained-of conduct into an undeniable tapestry of a criminal enterprise proscribed by RICO. The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff and the Law Applied to Such Facts 45. The Stern firm sued Plaintiff Figueroa and others including his co-owner Timothy
Brown for foreclosure on February 12, 2009, in Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
15
County Florida. The action was assigned case number 09-008530. The complaint contained the name of attorney Kim F. Stevens underneath the signature block; however the name of the attorney signing the pleading is, consistent with the pattern and practice of the Stern Defendants, appears not to be that of Ms. Stevens but is otherwise illegible. The original lender in the subject mortgage was Loan America, Inc. The mortgage at issue contained the standard MERS language. The plaintiff was Indymac Federal Bank FSB F/K/A Indymac Bank FSB. Erica Johnson-Seck signed two different assignments in furtherance of the foreclosure, both of which were recorded in the public records and one of which the lawyer from the Stern firm relied upon in arguing to the trial judge at the February 1, 2010 hearing on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In each case Johnson-Seck signed as an officer of a different entity. In the first assignment, which states that it was prepared by and should be return[ed] to David J. Stern, Esq., she was allegedly an officer of MERS. The first assignment (Exhibit F) contained at least two falsehoods: 1) that MERS is located at 3300 SW 34th Ave. Ste. 101 in Ocala, FL; and 2) that MERS received $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration in exchange for the assignment. In the second assignment, dated November 12, 2009 Johnson-Seck was allegedly an officer of IndyMac Bank, which no longer existed at that time, having been dissolved and merged into a new entity, OneWestBank, FSB, in March of 09. Erica Johnson Seck has been the subject of severe judicial criticism for apparent fraud. In Count II the Defendant Firm brought suit on behalf of said entity to enforce a lost, stolen or destroyed promissory note and mortgage. In Count II, the Defendant Firm alleged that the plaintiff (which ceased to exist only one month after the complaint was filed and more than a year prior to the entry of final judgment) was not in possession of the original note and mortgage, that it (the plaintiff) was in possession of the note and mortgage and was entitled to enforce them when the loss occurred and the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the note because THEIR whereabouts for some reason cannot be determined. On March 26, 2009, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. filed the original signed promissory note
16
with the court. Neither Mr. Figueroa nor his co-defendant Timothy Brown were served at the residence they shared. Instead, a copy of the complaint was simply left at their doorstep; Mr. Figueroa did not respond to the complaint believing that he did not have to do so since he had not been properly served. On September 16, 2009, a default was entered against Mr. Figueroa. The plaintiff did not attempt to obtain a definite final judgment. His co-defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This motion was filed pro se and contained numerous arguments regarding standing. On February 1, 2010, final judgment of foreclosure was entered. Mr. Figueroa and Mr. Brown subsequently filed an Emergency Motion to Vacate Judgment and Foreclosure Sale. That motion was dated February 4, 2010. On February 22, 2010, attorney Lynn E. Szymoniak entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Figueroa and Brown and she on that same date filed a Motion to Vacate Order Granting Summary Judgment. The motion was later denied. The property was sold at auction on April 8, 2010. 46. The mails and wires were used in furtherance of the scheme to defraud in Plaintiffs
foreclosure case, as exemplified by the following predicate acts: a) On or about March 26, 2009, Jean M. Schwartz, legal assistant employed by and acting for the Stern Firm, mailed to the clerk of the circuit court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, located at 201 SE 6th St. in Fort Lauderdale, a coverletter concerning the Plaintiffs foreclosure case and stating, in pertinent part, Please find the enclosed NOTE to be filed in the abovereferenced action. This action was in furtherance of the RICO enterprise and the conspiracy beneath it in that it was directed toward obtaining a final judgment of foreclosure to which the plaintiff, represented by the Stern Defendants, was not entitled. b) On or about April 4, 2009, the Defendant Firm mailed to the same clerk of court and to Timothy J. Brown (who owned the property with Plaintiff Figueroa as joint tenants with right of survivorship) a Notice of Filing Note and a document asserted to be a copy of the original
17
note. This action was in furtherance of the RICO enterprise and the conspiracy beneath it in that it was directed toward obtaining a final judgment of foreclosure to which the plaintiff, represented by Stern, was not entitled. c) On or about January 26, 2010, the Defendant Firm delivered by an unknown means a fraudulent assignment of mortgage in Plaintiffs case to the Broward County Commissions Official Records Division, with the instruction that it was to be recorded and then returned to the address of the Stern firm. In sending or causing such document to be delivered to Official Records, and by including this instruction, the Stern Defendants intended to obtain and did obtain the return of the document through the U.S. mail. It was mailed to the Stern Defendants by Records on or about January 26, 2010, and received by said Defendants within a day or two thereafter. d) On or about August 19, 2009 the Defendant Firm delivered by an unknown means a separate fraudulent assignment of Plaintiffs mortgage in Plaintiffs case to the Broward County Commissions Official Records Division, with the instruction that it was to be recorded and then returned to the address of the Stern firm. In sending or causing such document to be delivered to Official Records, and by including this instruction, the Stern Defendants intended to obtain and did obtain the return of the document through the U.S. mail. It was mailed to the Stern Defendants by Records on or about August 19, 2009, and received by said Defendants within a day or two thereafter. 47. Plaintiff was injured in that he lost his one-half interest in his property and home. His
injuries were proximately caused by the fraudulent scheme and by the predicate acts of mail fraud detailed hereinabove. Had the Stern Defendants not utilized the mail as alleged in the preceding paragraph, the foreclosure could not have ended in an adverse final judgment. Had Stern not created the fraudulent assignments there could have been no foreclosure. Because there was no real party in interest which could bring the foreclosure or legitimately assign its rights to another, Plaintiffs damages are half of the value of the property, multiplied by three. The value of the property is best
18
determined by reference to the amount alleged to be due in the foreclosure complaint, which was $346,800.00. Class Action Allegations 48. (a) It is believed that this suit is properly maintainable as a class action because: Potential members of the Class are believed to number in the tens of thousands, if not
more; for this reason joinder of all members is impracticable; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1); (b) There are questions of law or fact common to the class (such as whether the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine precludes claims for damages under federal law, brought in federal court, arising from fraudulent procurement of state court judgments); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); [c] The claims of the representative party (Figueroa) are typical of the claims of the class
in the following respects: He was sued for foreclosure by a Stern-represented plaintiff which was not the real party in interest and which had no standing to foreclose; the Stern firm filed one or more fraudulent assignments in the case; and he lost his home pursuant to a final judgment of foreclosure entered by a Florida state court; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3); and (d) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, because the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff is conscientious, truly concerned for the rights and well-being of those who may be affected by the actions of Plaintiff and counsel herein; has just less than seven years of experience as a civil litigator in both state and federal courts; has the support of a vast number of attorneys and persons having knowledge of the facts and law which will be of significance in the ultimate outcome of this matter; is consistently willing to take constructive criticism, and will not put his own financial interests or any other personal considerations ahead of the best interests of the Class. Counsel for Plaintiff, while not experienced in class actions, now practices exclusively in the area of foreclosure litigation and himself discovered and identified the issues and fact pattern which
19
underlie this case. Specifically, in successfully representing clients Dennis and Joyce Brown against a foreclosure action brought by the Stern firm, the undersigned identified the assignment produced by plaintiff as a forgery and ultimately, after further investigation independently (but with reliance on Internet resources) came to recognize and declare the tremendous scope of the robo-signer problem. The Attorney General of Florida relied substantially on documents provided by the undersigned at the AGs request in announcing and pursuing the investigation which is currently underway and which has been joined by the attorneys general of the other 49 states. The national investigation was substantially contributed to by the discoveries and declarations made by the undersigned counsel, and so for this reason said counsel is uniquely positioned to champion the case, and motivated to succeed, as its theory is his own. Plaintiffs counsel has received, and will not hesitate to accept, numerous offers of assistance from attorneys throughout Florida and elsewhere, including such well-known and respected persons as Henry P. Trawick, Jr. There are also additional attorneys and law firms, known to be experienced in class action litigation, with whom the undersigned is currently in discussions as to their appearing in this action as co-counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff has procured the assistance of Litigation Logic, a leading litigation support company. The Plaintiff, Mr. Figueroa, is, for a non-lawyer, exceptionally knowledgeable about the facts and law which will be of significance in the ultimate outcome of this matter and is from all indications a person of character. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 49. The prosecution of separate actions by the members of the proposed class would
run the risk of prejudicing the rights of the other potential members such that their ability to bring their own separate actions and obtain redress would be substantially impaired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (1) (B). 50. Questions of law or fact which the members of the proposed class have in common
20
predominate over questions of law and fact which are unique to individuals eligible for membership. The same pattern of prosecution was followed in all of the members foreclosure cases, with only minor variations from time to time. Specifically, in each case the plaintiff would file suit against the borrower-defendants named in the operative mortgage and note, as well as against two unknown persons referred to in the case styles as John or Jane Does. The initial pleading was titled Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents. The plaintiff by and through the Stern firm would engage in a number of tactics designed to create the impression in the minds of the judiciary that the defendants had been properly served, when in fact they had not. In about 50% of cases in which the Stern defendants caused a return of service reflecting personal service to be filed, the defendants had not in fact been served. The plaintiffs moved for default and obtained it, either against John and Jane Doe only, or against John and Jane Doe and the borrower-defendants. The plaintiff would then move for summary judgment, using a standardized template that did not meet the moving partys burden to establish that there was no issue of material fact, in particular on the issue of standing. The defendants usually filed a motion to dismiss or answer alleging lack of standing and asserting that foreclosure could not be had without the original loan documents. The plaintiffs, by and through the Stern firm, would create and file one or more assignments purporting to vest standing in the named plaintiff. Then, either a few days prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the lawyer employed by the Stern firm would produce what was touted as the original note and mortgage. Either the Stern Defendants were in possession or control of the original documents the entire time, and pretended not to have them so as to lure the defendants into concentrating their defenses on that issue, or they fraudulently manufactured the documents during the litigation as they are known to have done with assignments. Either way, fraud was committed which proximately caused the final judgments and ultimate takings of the class members real properties. The documents fraudulently generated, and other documents which were incidental but still a part of
21
the scheme, were sent by Stern employees through the mails to clerks of court, litigants, and defense attorneys. In many cases the defendants were tricked by the Stern attorney into agreeing to final summary judgments, as further explained below. Final judgments were prepared in advance and signed by the judge the day of the hearing, although they were not given to the defendants at that time, even when they were present. They were not usually mailed in a timely fashion to the defendants. This insured that the defendants who had been fooled into agreeing to the summary judgments did not discover the true nature of the order until the hearing was over and the judge and the Stern attorney were effectively beyond reach. It further greatly reduced the possibility of timely motions for rehearing and/or notices of appeal. In summary, in every members foreclosure case there were mailings used in furtherance of the scheme, and fraud was committed by and though the Stern Firm. The differences were minor when evaluated in the context of the RICO law, meaning that whether or not an individual plaintiff could state a claim for a RICO violation is unlikely to be affected by these minor variations in the course of the fraud. RICO stands alone or nearly alone as a cause of action providing an opportunity for meaningful redress. This is because the other available statutory causes of action (e.g., the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act) have very short statutes of limitation, and because the persons involved have disguised their identities using MERS to such a degree of effectiveness that the true tortfeasors, who are also the real parties in interest, generally cannot be reached without relying upon allegations of the grand scheme to defraud described herein. 51. The putative class members need to control the manner and means of prosecution
separate actions is not particularly compelling and does not outweigh the advantages to class action. To the contrary, a class action is the superior method for resolving the controversy, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), because it does not require them to pay attorney fees or costs in advance of any recovery, and because their risk of being sanctioned for failing to provide discovery, or for the tactics of counsel, is much less as class members than as individuals.
22
52. a)
The members of the proposed class share the following characteristics: Each owned Florida real property which was encumbered by a mortgage listing MERS as mortgagee;
(b)
Each suffered the loss of all right, title and interest in his or her property by operation of an adverse final judgment in a civil action for foreclosure in which the plaintiff was represented by the Defendant Firm;
c)
The foreclosure actions brought against the Class Members were fraudulently prosecuted in the name of plaintiffs which were not the real parties in interest and which had no legal right to bring suit to foreclose or to obtain final judgment.
53.
This definition is sufficient to allow the class members and the issues to be identified
such that this action, including the discovery process, can be conducted in a reasonably efficient manner. 54. Based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b) and the facts alleged in this section, class
certification is legally and factually warranted. Count 1 - Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 [c] Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A. and David J. Stern 55. 56. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 40-47 here. Defendants David J. Stern and Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. are persons
employed by and associated with the RICO enterprise, MERS. Anytime action is taken in the name of MERS, the party causing such action to occur is participating in or conducting the affairs of the RICO enterprise, and when the mails or wires are used in or appurtenant to such action or actions, the affairs are conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity. Alternatively, they were employed by and associated with MERS for a period of at least five years, from January of 2004 until the Spring of 2009. The Stern firm represented MERS in conjunction with the preparation and execution of the fraudulent assignments; according to the testimony of Cheryl Samons MERS employed or employs 23
the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. and David J. Stern as its counsel. The Stern Defendants are or were for the period of at least five years also associated with the enterprise in that MERS granted to David J. Stern and to certain employees of the Stern firm the equivalent of powers of attorney in the form of several Agreements for Signing Authority. (Exhibit E) The Stern Defendants are also
associated with the enterprise in that MERS has passed several corporate resolutions purporting to grant to Stern employees the right to Execute any and all documents necessary to foreclose upon the property securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS System . . . . (Exhibit J) The Stern firm by and through its employees has executed such documents and sent them through the U.S. Mail and wires to county recording offices, clerks of court, and others in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme personified by MERS. 57. The MERS enterprise affects interstate commerce because of the fact that the U.S. Mail
is used to transmit the fraudulent assignments, complaints for foreclosure, pre-suit default notices and demand letters created by the Stern firm in the name of MERS or in reliance upon it. 58. The MERS enterprise also affects interstate commerce because email and other means of electronic transmission, such as docx or similar software, are used to transmit from servicers to the Stern firm over the wires data for the purpose of initiating foreclosures. The emails and other transmissions over the wires transmitted in furtherance of the scheme to defraud are too numerous to list, and the precise details therefore are uniquely within the knowledge of the participants pending discovery. 59. The Stern Defendants conducted or directly or indirectly participated in the conduct of
the affairs of the enterprise (MERS) through a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit: mail and wire fraud. Specifically, David J. Stern and the Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A. participated in the scheme to defraud through the creation and generation of fraudulent assignments and the other fraudulent acts described in the next paragraph. For the purpose of executing such scheme and in
24
furtherance thereof the Stern Defendants sent and received items through the U.S. Mail and over the wires. As and for examples which tend to establish the likelihood that many specific instances will be revealed through discovery, and as and for specific predicate acts of racketeering activity, Plaintiff cites the following: a) On or about April 24, 2009, David J. Stern and the Stern Firm (both were addresses) received by email a letter from MERS (despite the MERS letterhead, since MERS has no employees and allegedly does nothing other than register servicing interests electronically, it would appear that the letter was written by Merscorp, not MERS) concerning MERS or Merscorp, Inc.s inability to reach Cheryl Samons by telephone, urging David Stern to discuss with MERS representatives the proposed implementation of an electronic communications protocol between MERS and the Stern Firm, and making reference to the large amount of mail the Stern Firm was regularly sending to MERS. b) On or about April 27, 2009, David J. Stern and the Defendant firm received this same letter by U.S. Mail (both were addressees). c) On or about March 26, 2009, Jean M. Schwartz, legal assistant employed by and acting for the Stern Firm, mailed to the clerk of the circuit court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, located at 201 SE 6th St. in Fort Lauderdale, a coverletter concerning the Plaintiffs foreclosure case stating, in pertinent part, Please find the enclosed NOTE to be filed in the above-referenced action. This mailing was in furtherance of the RICO enterprise and the conspiracy beneath it in that it was directed toward obtaining a final judgment of foreclosure to which the plaintiff, represented by Stern, was not entitled. d) On or about April 4, 2009, the Defendant Firm mailed to the same clerk of court and to Timothy J. Brown (who owned the property with Plaintiff Figueroa as joint tenants with right of survivorship) a Notice of Filing Note and a document asserted to be a copy of the original note.
25
This action was in furtherance of the RICO enterprise and the conspiracy beneath it in that it was directed toward obtaining a final judgment of foreclosure to which the plaintiff, represented by Stern, was not entitled. e) On or about January 26, 2010, the Defendant Firm delivered by an unknown means a fraudulent assignment of mortgage in Plaintiffs case to the Broward County Commissions Official Records Division, with the instruction that it was to be recorded and then returned to the address of the Stern firm. In sending or causing such document to be delivered to Official Records, and by including this instruction, the Stern Defendants intended to obtain and did obtain the return of the document through the U.S. mail. It was mailed to the Stern Defendants to 332 SE 10th Ct. by Records on or about January 26, 2010, and received by said Defendants within a day or two thereafter. (Exhibit G) f) On or about August 19, 2009 the Defendant Firm delivered by an unknown means a separate fraudulent assignment of Plaintiffs mortgage in Plaintiffs case to the Broward County Commissions Official Records Division, with the instruction that it was to be recorded and then returned to the address of the Stern firm. (Exhibit F) In sending or causing such document to be delivered to Official Records, and by including this instruction, the Stern Defendants intended to and did procure the return of the document through the U.S. mail. It was mailed to the Stern Defendants by Records on or about August 19, 2009, and received by said Defendants within a day or two thereafter. g) MERS sent a letter to David J. Stern dated April 24, 2009 which was transmitted by U.S. Mail and email. It makes reference to the high volume of mail the Stern firm sends to MERS. Based upon this letter it is likely that, to the extent necessary, more details regarding the dates and contents, etc. of individual mailings will be readily obtainable through the discovery process herein. In the event this Court does not deem the predicate acts alleged herein specific enough to meet the applicable pleading requirements, Plaintiff should be granted an exception in the form of a relaxing of
26
these requirements due to the sophistication, depth and breadth of the fraud and the fact that Plaintiff does not have another way to obtain the necessary documents readily available other than through the use of discovery devices herein. Although the April 24th letter is not specific as to the dates or contents of such mailings, it does tend to establish that the Stern Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by using the U.S. Mail to send parcels which were in furtherance of the scheme to defraud. These mailings were very likely related to the Stern-MERS affiliation as described herein, the sole purpose of which was to enable the signing of fraudulent documents which concealed the fact that there were no real parties in interest who could legitimately execute assignments of foreclose upon the properties. 60. In addition to the predicate acts listed in the immediately preceding paragraph, the
Stern Defendants engaged in a number of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, extending from in or about 2002 through and including the present time which 1) necessarily or in the ordinary course of business involved the use of the mail and wires such that they may reasonably be viewed as RICO predicate acts; which 2) were illegal or legally questionable and which 3) exemplify the common themes seen throughout the fact pattern such as non-documentation and concealment of the true actors. The following overt acts when viewed in context tend to establish the Stern Defendants complicity in the conspiracy and participation in the RICO enterprise:. a. Actively concealing the plaintiffs lack of standing in their standard complaints
for foreclosure, usually entitled Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents. (Exhibits A and B). b. Providing misleading authorship information and omitting the dates of
foreclosure complaints. c. Using misleading language and artificially friendly mannerisms immediately
prior to summary judgment hearings to convince pro se defendants to agree to sale dates sometime
27
far in the future, thereby obtaining summary judgment from the courts without any opposition. The attorneys know that the defendants intended modifications are unlikely to occur but act as if they expect them to be consummated prior to the sale. d. Exhibit D). e. Altering common hardware and/or software used by the Defendant Firm so that Creating, executing, and filing fraudulent assignments. (Samples attached as
envelopes used to mail important legal documents, such as final judgments, to defendants contain no date of mailing in the postmark and intentionally delaying in sending the mail until defendants have lost their rights. (Exhibit H). f. Mailing motions and other court documents in a way designed to facilitate the
illegal thefts of properties. For example, the Defendant Firm has been known to agree to cancel a foreclosure sale, and to send the defendant a copy of a motion to cancel such sale, but not file such motion with the clerk of court or present it to the assigned judge. In this example, the sale goes forward with minimal interference from the defendant. 61. Floridas Attorney General, and those of all 49 other states have recognized the
seriousness of the problem and the damages which apparently have been caused to mortgagordefendants such as the putative class members. Floridas AG released the following statement on the subject: Because many mortgages have been bought and sold by different institutions multiple times, key paperwork involved in the process to obtain foreclosure judgments is often missing. On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners. Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms under investigation.
The Attorneys General are not the only ones to acknowledge the substantial probability of wrongful foreclosure of the type decried herein. U.S. Congressman Alan Grayson has sought corrective and
28
punitive actions by the authorities against the banks which own MERS and the foreclosure mill firms, most particularly including the Stern Firm. He has even declared that it is time for handcuffs, meaning criminal prosecutions, against the banks for their fraud. (See Exhibit I) 62. The predicate acts satisfy the RICO continuity requirement: they extend from in or
about 1999 through today and continue unabated, which meets the definition of open-ended continuity. Even if MERS and Merscorp, Inc. have terminated their relationship with the Stern defendants, that relationship was several years in duration (from at least 2004 until 2009). At a minimum the Stern Defendants are still filing and prosecuting foreclosures upon MERS mortgages, and they are doing so in the names of entities which are not the true parties in interest. In this way the Stern Defendants continue through the present day to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in furtherance of the scheme to defraud, even if their official relationship with MERS and Merscorp, Inc. has ended. The threat of continued criminal activity as part of this enterprise in, without question, still looming over the American economy. Here is a description from David J. Stern of the continuing foreclosure rout: One of my favorite questions from one of my believers, one of my investors on the first call-in, What inning are we in? If this was a baseball game, what inning are we in? And my response is, were only in the 2nd inning. We still have 3 innings of foreclosures left, and after the foreclosures, we have 3 innings of REO liquidation and as the REO liquidations pan out, we get into the re-fi and we get into the origination. [...] So yeah, were in the 2nd inning, but guess what - when we get to the 9th inning, its going to be a doubleheader and we got a second game coming. So when people say, Oh my God, the economy is bad! Im like, Oh my God, its great. I mean, I hate to hear people are losing their homes and credit isnt available and credit is such that they cant re-fi, but if you are in our niche, its what we do and its what we want to see.
Www.americansunitedforjustice.org/stern.html.
Alternatively, closed-ended continuity is present
because the scheme occurred over a period in excess of ten years. 63. As the result of the RICO enterprise of which these actions were part, the Class
Members have suffered damages, in that they have lost their homes. The measure of the damages for 29
the Class Members is the average of the accelerated amounts demanded from the Class Members by the Defendant Firm in the subject complaints to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents. The mortgages were truly not subject to being foreclosed upon, and the fair market value of the properties at the time of foreclosure is for this reason the measure of the damages suffered by the Class Members. To provide an example, if the average value of the properties was
$250,000.00, and the Class is comprised of 10,000 persons, the initial damages to which the Class is entitled by law would be $2,500,000,000.00, or 2.5 billion dollars. This amount is then tripled by operation of the RICO law, so that, without reference to attorney fees and costs, the total damages awarded would be 7,500,000,000.00, or 7.5 billion dollars. 64. The Class Members are entitled to judgment in the amount of three times their actual
damages, which should be arrived in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraph, plus costs and a reasonable attorneys fee under 18 U.S.C. 1964[c]. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class Members, demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the total damages sustained by the Class, plus costs, attorneys fees, and such additional relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON COUNT 1 Count II - Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 [c] - Defendant Merscorp, Inc. 65. 66. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3, 30 through 44 and 45 through 47 here. Merscorp, Inc. was created in or about 1998, and its purpose, from the outset, was to
enact the fraudulent scheme/RICO enterprise herein complained of. It used to be MERS, but then a replica MERS was created and the prior MERS (the second of three) was changed to Merscorp, Inc. The corporate resolutions of MERS, which are actually generated by Merscorp, Inc. establish that authorization of employees of foreclosure mills to sign sworn documents about which the employees have no personal knowledge in order to facilitate foreclosures is consistent with its corporate purpose.
30
67.
It is said that executioners always wear masks. In many instances in which it appears
that MERS has taken action, the true actor is Merscorp, Inc. Whenever Merscorp, Inc. takes an action in furtherance of the scheme and fears being held accountable, it acts through the one-size-fits-all MERS disguise. It is in fact virtually impossible for MERS to take any action in its own right. That is because MERS does not have any employees, has not had a single employee in the last five years and, upon information and belief, has never had a single employee. In each and every instance in which MERS appears to act, the entity taking action is one of the conspirators, most or all of whom are MERS Members, wearing its MERS disguise. 68. By creating MERS, the conspirators set into motion a plan designed to defraud
borrowers, the government, and investors. This plan was designed to and did make it impossible for a borrower, his or her attorneys, the courts, the government or anyone else to identify the actual beneficial owner of any loan or the property by which it was collateralized. Unlike any other time in the history of real property ownership, once MERS was created and utilized in some 62 million mortgages, the true beneficiary of the debt memorialized in the promissory note and secured by the mortgage became private information which was not even available to the borrower. MERS was and is the linchpin of a system of earning profits from the securitization of residential loans, and was designed to be used as a sham beneficiary in the original mortgages, with the unlawful intent of making it difficult or impossible for Plaintiff and other victims to identify and hold accountable the perpetrators and architects of the industry-wide predatory practices and policies. 69. The MERS corporate resolution attached hereto as Exhibit K provides that, inter
alia, the following provision is consistent with its Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws: [The attached list of persons employed by the Defendant Firm] are authorized to:
31
[. . . ] Execute any and all documents necessary to foreclose upon the property securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS System that is shown to be registered to the Member, including but not limited to (a) substitution of Trustee on Deeds of Trust, (b)Trustees Deeds upon sale on behalf of MERS, [c] Affidavits of Non-military Status, (d) Affidavits of Judgment, (e) Affidavits of Debt, (f) quitclaim deeds, (g) Affidavits regarding lost promissory notes, and (h) endorsements of promissory notes to VA or HUD on behalf of MERS as a required part of the claims process.
Thus, it is not only assignments which MERS (actually Merscorp, Inc.,) has authorized the Defendant Firm and others to sign without any factual or legal basis; Merscorp, Inc. has granted carte blanche to the Defendant Firm and others to sign and file any and all sworn documents necessary to facilitate illegal foreclosures. 70. Merscorp, Inc. commits numerous predicate acts of mail and wire fraud each and
every business day. Most of these acts it commits in the name of the RICO enterprise, MERS. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a document bearing the name of MERS which was prepared by Merscorp, Inc. and describes in great detail the procedures, actions and capabilities of a system named MERS Mail. It involves receiving and transmitting a wide variety of documents
through the U.S. Mail and electronically over the wires. The transmission of these documents in the name of MERS by Merscorp, Inc. are predicate acts of wire and mail fraud because they cannot be conducted in the name of MERS without being intended to further the goals of the enterprise which it personifies. 71. Merscorp, Inc. asserts that MERS is its subsidiary and has claimed to be the sole
shareholder in MERS. On its website, mersinc.org, Merscorp, Inc. Lists itself as the copyright holder of the sites content. On a p a ge of the site , f ound at
http://www.mersinc.org/Foreclosures/index.aspx, MERS is defined as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. On another page of the site, Merscorp, Inc. Lists the shareholders of MERS. (Exhibit M). These shareholders were the original conspirators who designed and 32
implemented the fraudulent scheme and RICO enterprise (MERS) which ultimately caused the Plaintiffs injuries and those of the class members. While the shareholders of a corporation, including an affiliate, are generally shielded from liability, there is an exception to this rule which is applicable in this case. Where a corporate entity is created for a fraudulent purpose, or to sabotage or undermine the judicial process and/or the administration of justice, the corporate form will be disregarded and the shareholders are subject to the imposition of individual liability. That is exactly the case here, and this reality is avinced by the contradictions which plague each and every description of MERS, its role, its creation, its owners, and the documents which are created in reliance upon it. created MERS solely to facilitate the commission of illegal acts, and has utilized it to commit those acts and to enable other persons and entities who are participants in the scheme to do so. According to the testimony of one of the Merscorp chief executives, MERS has no employees and has had none for, at a minimum, the last five years. Yet every business day within that time period persons executed thousands of foreclosure facilitating documents in the name of MERS while holding themselves out to be assistant secretaries or vice presidents of MERS. Because Merscorp, Inc. and/or MERS specifically authorizes these robo-signers,
including Cheryl Samons, to conduct such activities, it is liable for damages caused by their actions. Because MERS and/or Merscorp, Inc. communicate such authorization over the wires via email, its activities affect interstate commerce and constitute a pattern of racketeering activity in the form of wire fraud for which Merscorp, Inc. may be held liable. 72. More specifically, for each and every Certifying Officer or robo-signer a form
is downloaded from www.mersinc.org, filled out with the name of the person to be appointed in the MERS corporate resolution as assistant secretary or vice-president, and emailed to Merscorp, Inc. at merscertifyingofficer@mersinc.org. Within a day or two thereafter, Merscorp,
33
Inc. engages in interstate commerce and commits a RICO predicate act by emailing the completed resolution to the requesting party. 73. Four MERS Corporate Resolutions are attached hereto as Exhibit J another is K.
In the creation of each such instrument of fraud, a representative of the Stern firm, acting on its behalf, sent such an email to Merscorp, Inc. one or two business days prior to the date contained on the face of the associated resolution. Said executed resolutions, and the attached list of names, were transmitted by Merscorp, Inc. over the wires to the Stern Defendants. These email
transmissions to and from were racketeering acts of wire fraud. The dates of these resolutions are 4/27/07; 10/16/07; 12/18/07; 2/8/08; and February 6th of an unrevealed year (believed to be 2006). The dates of the occurrences of wire fraud closely correspond to these dates. 74. The Florida standard MERS mortgage is currently displayed on the website. The
publication of said instrument over the Internet and the wires through which it runs is a predicate act of wire fraud because it is a communication made with the intention by Merscorp, Inc. of furthering the goals of the RICO enterprise. 75. In addition to these predicate acts, Merscorp, Inc. has engaged in a number of
other overt activities in furtherance of its mission which by necessity include[d] the use of the mail and wires: a) Planning, designing, and enacting the MERS criminal enterprise of which Plaintiff
complains herein; b) issue; c) d) Drafting of the standard MERS language to be included in such mortgages; Entering into agreements for signing authority Arranging for the use of the MERS as mortgagee in the standard mortgages at
34
e) f)
Creation and maintenance of an acceptable public image for MERS; Owning and maintaining the registration and licensure of the MERS entity,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, with the necessary state agencies, plus other ministerial acts designed to maintain the corporate shield and to mimic the actions expected of normal corporations so as to fraudulently disguise its true nature. g) 76. Facilitating the use of the MERS artifice by other participants in the scheme. In the event this Court does not deem the predicate acts alleged herein specific
enough to meet the applicable pleading requirements, Plaintiff should be granted an exception in the form of a relaxing of these requirements due to the sophistication, depth and breadth of the fraud and the fact that Plaintiff does not have another way to obtain the necessary documents readily available other than through the use of discovery devices herein. 77. The predicate acts are related. They share a common purpose: defrauding the
Class Members and other borrowers of their money and property. They share the common themes of non-documentation and concealment of the real parties in interest. 78. The predicate acts satisfy the RICO continuity requirement: they extend from in
or about 1998 through and continue unabated at the present time, which meets the definition of open-ended continuity. In the alternative, the participants in the RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activities continuously for a period of time exceeding ten years in duration, which as a matter of law suffices to establish closed-ended continuity. 79. As the result of the RICO enterprise of which these actions were part, the Class Without joining the
Members have suffered damages, in that they have lost their homes.
conspiracy devised by Merscorp, Inc. and its principals, and without having acted overtly in furtherance of the scheme through the wires and U.S. Mail the foreclosure mills and the
35
strawmen-plaintiffs would never have been able to foreclose on the homes owned by the Class Members. The measure of the damages for the Class Members is the average of the accelerated amounts demanded from the Class Members by the Defendant Firm in the subject complaints to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents. Since there were no viable plaintiffs the mortgages were not subject to being foreclosed upon, and the fair market value of the properties for this reason is the measure of the damages suffered by the Class Members. The manner in which damages should be calculated is set forth in paragraph 63, supra, and is incorporated here by reference. 80. The Class Members are entitled to judgment in the amount of three times their
actual damages, which should be arrived at using the formula set forth in said paragraph, plus costs and a reasonable attorneys fee under 18 U.S.C. 1964[c]. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class Members, demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the total damages sustained by the Class, plus costs, attorneys fees, and such additional relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON COUNT 2 Count III - Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962[d] - All Defendants Except the Defendant Firm 81. 82. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 here. The Defendants have conspired together to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962[c] by
committing fraud and using the U.S. Mail to do so. Because they agreed upon the same criminal objective, to wit: theft of real properties through illegal foreclosures, each is responsible for the actions of the others. 69. Defendant David J. Stern is the owner of Defendant Law Offices of David J. Stern,
P.A., among other entities. He is a presently licensed attorney who directed the signing of the
36
assignments by Cheryl Samons and the other robo-signers of the Defendant Firm. He is listed in the fraudulent assignments as their author. In or about 1999 he joined the conspirators in the fraudulent scheme and agreed to commit two or more predicate acts in furtherance thereof. He participated in the conduct of the enterprises affairs by requiring Firm employees to take action in the name of MERS, including the execution of the MERS assignments, and this participation in or conducting of the enterprises affairs was accomplished through a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit: the use of the mails and wires to transmit such MERS-emblazoned and MERSenabled documentation to the courts, clerks of court, and others. These actions would only have been taken or caused to occur by Stern because of his awareness of and assent to the goals of the RICO enterprise. There is no purpose other than the conspiratorial one described herein which so well explains the conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which was a vital link in the chain of proximate causation leading to Plaintiff;s injury and those suffered by the other class members. 70. Defendant Merscorp, Inc conspired to violate 18 USC s1962[c] in that it agreed to
the overall objective of the conspiracy. Its agreement to the overall objective is established inferentially by virtue of the fact that it claims MERS as its subsidiary, and by the fact that it takes actions in the name of MERS. Its agreement to the objective of the conspiracy is also supported by the 71. Defendant American Land Title Association is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred.
37
72.
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS,
and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 73. Defendant CCO Mortgage Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 74. Defendant Chase Home Mortgage Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor
in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity ther is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 75. Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it
38
has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 76. Defendant Corinthian Mortgage Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 77. Defendant EverHome Mortgage Company is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 78. Defendant Fannie Mae is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 79. Defendant First American Title Insurance Corporation is a shareholder and initial
investor in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred.
39
80.
Defendant Freddie Mac is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 81. Defendant GMAC Residential Funding Corporation is a shareholder and initial
investor in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 82. Defendant Guaranty Bank is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 83. Defendant HSBC Finance Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS,
and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 84. Defendant Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying
40
Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 85. Defendant MGIC Investor Services Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor
in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 86. Defendant Mortgage Bankers Association is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 87. Defendant Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company is a shareholder and initial
investor in MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 88. Defendant PMI Mortgage Insurance Company is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred.
41
89.
Defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 90. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS,
and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 91. Defendant United Guaranty Corporation is a shareholder and initial investor in
MERS, and is believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 92. Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co.is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 93. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it
42
has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 94. Defendant WMC Mortgage is a shareholder and initial investor in MERS, and is
believed to be a MERS member. By making an initial investment, allowing itself to be listed as a shareholder through the present time, and by becoming a Member and paying Membership fees it has furthered and continues to further the goals of the conspiracy and therefore as a matter of law its complicity therein my be inferred. 95. These shareholder-Defendants are many of the same institutions the Defendant Firm
represents. This is no coincidence, as these entities are co-conspirators in the MERS scheme herein described. Due to contradictory information published by Defendant Merscorp, Inc., it cannot be determined with certainty whether they hold shares in Merscorp, Inc., in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or both. In any event, such ownership signifies the agreement of these Defendants to participate in the illegal enterprise herein complained of. Those who provide support for an illegal enterprise are liable for the actions of those who actively commit the criminal acts. Because it is a shareholder, each of these Defendants has directly or indirectly participated in such enterprise. Merscorp, Inc.s website makes this clear: Shareholders played a critical role in the development of MERS. Through their capital support, MERS was able to fund expenses related to development and initial start-up. http://www.mersinc.org/about/shareholders.aspx. By virtue of the fact that they funded the start-up and development of MERS, and because their investments were vital to it creation, the corporate veil is subject to piercing and the shareholder Defendants are liable for the actions of MERS and the actions of all other participants in the scheme. 96. It is believed that each of these newly added Defendants has entered into one or more
Agreements for Signing Authority to which Merscorp, Inc. and the Defendant Firm are also parties.
43
They are referred to as Members in these agreements, such as the ones attached hereto as Exhibit E. These Agreements are additional evidence of the complicity of the Defendants in the scheme herein complained of. 97. The overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy damaged the Class Members
in Florida. Specifically, as the result of the RICO enterprise (MERS) the Class Members were illegally divested of their Florida real properties. Because the conspirators are each liable for the acts of the others, it is appropriate that they be haled before this Court to answer for the damages inflicted upon the Class Members in this State. 98. The Defendant Firm has committed numerous acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, as
detailed herein, and is therefore properly subject to this Count. 99. Defendant DJSP Enterprises, Inc. is simply an alter ego of Defendant Stern and of the
Defendant Firm and it is therefore properly subject to this Count. 100. The Class Members are entitled to judgment in the amount of three times their actual
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON COUNT 3. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2010. KENNETH ERIC TRENT, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiff 831 East Oakland Park Blvd. (954)567-5877; (954)567-5872 trentlawoffice@yahoo.com
By: /s Kenneth Eric Trent Fla. Bar No. 693601 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on October 22, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
44
day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to electronically receive Notices of Electronic Filing. By: /s Kenneth Eric Trent Fla. Bar No. 693601
Service List
Robert M. Brochin, Esquire Andrew B. Boese, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2339 rbrochin@morganlewis.com aboese@morganlewis.com Attorney for Defendant Merscorp, Inc. Jeffrey Tew, Esquire Andrew B. Thompson, Esquire Tew Cardenas LLP 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 536-1112 (305) 536-1116 (fax) jt@tewlaw.com abt@tewlaw.com Attorney for Law Offices of David Stern, P.A. and David J. Stern William P. Heller, Esquire Akerman Senterfit & Eidson Las Olas Centre 350 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1600 45
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0006 (954) 463-2700 (954) 463-2224 (fax) william.heller@akerman.com Everhome Mortgage Company, Via ECF Jason Daniel Joffe, Esquire Traci H. Rollins, P.A. Squire, Sanders, & Dempsy L.L.P. Wachovia Financial Center 1900 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198 (561) 650-7200 (561) 655-1509 (fax) Jjoffe@ssd.com Trollins@ssd.com Attorneys for HSBC Finance Corporation
Dennis M. Campbell, Esquire Michelle A. McClaskey, Esquire CLARKE, SILVERGATE & CAMPBELL, P.A. 799 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 377-0700 (305) 377-3001 (fax) dcampbell@cslawfirm.com mmclaskey@csclawfirm.com Attorneys for JP Morgan Chase & Co. Louis M. Ursini, Esquire Adams and Reese LLP 1515 Ringling Boulevard Suite 700 Sarasota, FL 34236-6017 (941) 316-7600 (941) 316-7914 (fax) louis.ursini@arlaw.com Citimortgage Inc., Via ECF Lynette E. McGuinness, Esquire Murai Wald Biondo Moreno & Brochin 1200 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 46
(305) 444-0101 (305) 444-0174 lmcguinness@mwbm.com MGIC Investor Services, Via ECF Nelson Bellido, Esquire Patricia Montes de Oca, Esquire CONCEPCION MARTINEZ & BELLIDO 255 Aragon Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 (305) 444-6669 (305) 444-3665 (fax) Attorneys for Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company OF COUNSEL: Michael H. Carpenter, Esquire Katheryn M. Lloyd, Esquire Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, LLP 280 Plaza Suite 1300 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 365-4100 (614) 365-9145 (fax) Nbellido@cfclaw.com Pmontes@cfclaw.com Attorneys for Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company
Juan A. Gonzalez, Esquire Lieber, Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A. Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400 (305) 379-9626 (fax) Attorneys for Bank of America jag@lplaw.com Co-Counsel: Joseph F. Yenouskas, Esquire GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
47
48

Third Amended Complaint From Pacer

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Third Amended Complaint From Pacer

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 1 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 2 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 3 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 4 of 48

Defendant Chase Home Mortgage Corporation of the Southeast is a foreign corporate

which, according to www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. As a national organization, it

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 5 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 6 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 7 of 48

Defendant United Guaranty Corporation is a foreign corporate entity which, according

www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS.

www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS.

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 8 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 9 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 10 of 48

acknowledges that the mortgage will be assigned.

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 11 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 12 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 13 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 14 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 15 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 16 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 17 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 18 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 19 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 20 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 21 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 22 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 23 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 24 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 25 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 26 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 27 of 48

Case 0:10-cv-61296-CMA Document 112

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2010 Page 28 of 48