IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND JACOB GEESING, et al.

Substitute Trustee for IndyMac Mortgage Services, a Division of OneWestBank FSB and

INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, a Division of OneWestBank FSB, F.K.A. INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. Plaintiff v. MARYLU CARRANZA and LUIS CASTILLO, Defendants

Case No: 358708V

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY/DISMISS FORECLOSURE And PETITION/COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Comes now, MARYLU CARRANZA and LUIS CASTILLO, herein after referred to as Defendants, and file this action as Pro-Se Defendants, their Emergency Motion to Stay/Dismiss Foreclosure and Petition/Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by JACOB GEESING on behalf of Plaintiff INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, a Division of OneWestBank FSB, F.K.A. INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., herein after referred to as Plaintiffs collectively and for such cause of action would respectfully show unto the court the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. 1692 and 28 U.S.C. 1337. 2. Supplemental jurisdiction for the State law claims arises under 28 U.S.C. 1367. 3. Declaratory and injunctive relief are available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 and Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., 3-401 3-415 and 10-222.1. 4. Venue in this District is proper in that the Property of issue is located within the District, Plaintiffs transact business within the District and the conduct complained of occurred in the District. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing is purportedly a Trustee under an instrument titled Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee and also a principal in the law firm of the BWW Law Group, LLC whose principal place of business is 4520 East West Highway, Suite 200, Bethesda, Maryland. 1

6. Plaintiff, IndyMac Mortgage Services a Division of OneWestBank FSB, F.K.A. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. is a federal savings bank whose corporate headquarters are located in Pasadena, California. 7. Defendants at all relevant times, have been, and continue to be, residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, and are the title owners of the real property situated at 12116 Skip Jack Drive, Germantown, Maryland, 20874 (the "Property"). INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 8. Maryland Statutes and Rules regulate foreclosure proceedings that are initiated by a Trustee or Substitute Trustee under a Deed of Trust. The Maryland Rules require that the Trustee file various documents with the Circuit Court in the County where the property is located. The documents required to be filed include an order to docket, an appointment of substitute trustees, if applicable, and a number of affidavits for the courts review and consideration in connection with the foreclosure proceeding. 9. In part, this action addresses the failure of BWW LAW Group, LLC who function as Substitute Trustees under Deeds of Trust to meet their obligations under Maryland law. The Plaintiff Jacob Geesing has had a pattern and practice of filing and supporting thousands of foreclosures by multiple documents that state they are executed by the Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, however it is the Defendants contention that this Plaintiff has filed and supported documents not executed by him e.g., orders to docket, affidavits, appointments of Substitute Trustees, and trustee deeds. The result of this Plaintiffs conduct has been that he has intentionally or unintentionally caused hundreds, if not thousands, inaccurate documents to be filed as part of foreclosure proceedings before Maryland State Courts to obtain jurisdiction of the state courts over foreclosure proceedings, including in this instant matter. 10. Further, Plaintiff Jacob Geesing is an Officer of the Court and knew or should have known that his conduct does not meet the requirements of Maryland law and interferes with the proper As noted in previous cases conducted in Maryland courts, Defendants have consistently stated that the documents
contained truthful information and therefore were not false or perjurious. Defendants have also stated that the documents executed were with the knowledge of the Substitute Trustee and therefore not forged. However, the documents which state that they are executed by someone who did not in fact execute the documents are not factually accurate, and thus should be construed as a forgery.

administration of foreclosure proceedings. It is the Defendants belief that this Plaintiff submitted these documents to comply with time schedules that he simply was unable to meet if he had to review and execute each document that was to be submitted by him. This Plaintiffs conduct is devastating to Maryland homeowners, including Defendants and as a result, converts their possessory rights by evicting them months faster than possible if this Plaintiff had conducted business in compliance with Maryland statutes and Rules. 11. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) was signed into law on October 3, 2008. In implementing the Act, the U.S. Treasury instituted a number of programs, including the Making Homes Affordable Act, Capital Purchase Program, and Capital Assistance Program, among others. See http://www.financialstability.gov/roadtostability/programs/htm. 12. Pursuant to the plans, and the authority provided by H.R. 1424 Title I Sec. 109-110, the United States Treasury has ordered as follows: Mortgage Foreclosure Mitigation: All recipients of capital investments under the Financial Stability Plan will be required to commit to participate in mortgage modification program. http://financialstability.gov/about/transparencyaccountability.html (April 16, 2009). 13. The Plaintiff-Trustee in this case is acting on behalf of IndyMac Mortgage Services, which has received monies under the plan, and, as part of its agreement with the FDIC, did agree to undergo loss mitigation procedures before instituting foreclosure proceedings. In this instant matter, it has failed to do so. 14. There is a list of those mortgage servicers committed to evaluating whether or not homeowners are eligible under the Making Homes Affordable Modification Plan guidelines. A list of such servicers is available at http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/contact.servicer.html. IndyMac Mortgage Services is listed as a participating servicer. 15. Said guidelines, promulgated on March 4, 2009, clearly require [A]ny foreclosure action. be temporarily suspended during the trial period, or while borrowers are considered for alternative foreclosure prevention options. In the event that the Home Affordable Modification or alternative foreclosure options fail, the foreclosure action may be resumed. 16. The guidelines further require, in summary: a. A screening for borrowers who write to their lender for assistance even if not in default;

b. A Net Present Value (NPV) analysis, which, if positive, requires the offering of the Making Homes Affordable (HMA) Modification; c. If the NPV analysis does not qualify for the MHA program, the lender must seek alternative foreclosure prevention, including alternative modification programs, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, and short sales; and d. Borrowers in litigation can qualify for a modification without waiving legal rights in such litigation. 17. It is the Defendants contention that the Plaintiffs are contractually bound to stay this action. The Plaintiffs should not be permitted to foreclose in violation of their stated obligations to the U.S. Treasury. The Defendants herein have been provided rights by the U.S. Government, which this Court should honor. 18. Furthermore, in 2008, the State of Maryland enacted significant and comprehensive changes to statutes and changed Maryland Rules governing foreclosures with the stated intent of affording Maryland homeowners more protections and notice. As a compromise to affording homeowners additional protections, the Legislature imposed a number of conditions precedents to a foreclosure, a sale, or a ratification of sale in exchange for allowing Substitute Trustees to file Orders to Docket using affidavits as opposed to requiring production of the underlying documentation, unless challenged. It is the Defendants contention that the Plaintiffs reaction to these changes was simply to expand their production line of fabricated and counterfeit affidavits and to file more fabricated and counterfeit affidavits in each case, including their own. Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs have adopted a robo-signer methodology. 19. This expedited robo-signing of documents limits the amount of time in which Defendants and other Maryland homeowners are able to pursue other loss mitigation options, including modification. FACTS 20. This is a foreclosure case which was filed on or about February 3, 2012. 21. Defendants previously applied and were granted a Trial Modification under HAMP on July 14, 2009. See attached Exhibit A 22. That the Defendants have continued to abide by the terms of their Trial Modification and todate, IndyMac Mortgage Services have failed to grant them a permanent mortgage modification. 4

23. That in January of 2011, without good cause, IndyMac Mortgage Services began returning Defendants trial mortgage payment to them, along with a letter stating, Thank you for your recent payment. However, we are returning this payment as the amount submitted is less than a full contractual payment. (See attached Exhibit B) This practice has continued each month to-date. 24. As responsible homeowners wanting to preserve the ownership of their home, the Defendants reached out to IndyMac Mortgage Services on several occasions in order to find out why payments were being returned. It wasnt until just this past March of 2012, that Defendants received correspondence from IndyMac Mortgage Services (See attached Exhibit C), advising them of a customer contact manager whom they could contact to help them with the workout process. 25. On or about May 1, 2012, Defendants received a Notice of Impending Sale dated April 27, 2012. See attached Exhibit D. Despite the affidavits filed by Plaintiff Jacob Geesing in this case, it is the Defendants contention that this was the first notification that their home was in foreclosure. The limited correspondence received from IndyMac Mortgage Services by Defendants never included a Notice of Acceleration and/or a Notice of Intention to Foreclose, which is clearly in breach of the Deed of Trust pertaining to this Property. 26. As indicated in the March 1, 2012 letter (Exhibit C) to Defendants, Defendants were clearly under the impression that IndyMac Mortgage Services was working with them. 27. It wasnt until Defendants received the Notice of Impending Sale on or about May 1, 2012 that they became aware that a foreclosure on their Property had been initiated. 28. According to the Docket entries filed in this instant case, Plaintiff Jacob Geesing filed an Order to Docket and affidavits, which were supposedly executed by him in front of a notary. These include: a. Affidavit Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(B)(1); and b. Affidavit Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(B)(4). c. Two Affidavits Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief Act d. Affidavit of Compliance w/RP 7-105.9(B)(1) e. Owner Occupied Residential Property Statement

29. It has come to the attention of the Defendants that the Plaintiff, Jacob Geesing has been and still is the named Plaintiff-Trustee in thousands of foreclosure cases filed throughout the State of Maryland. Five cases in which this Plaintiff was the named Plaintiff-Trustee include: a. Geesing v. Palmer, Circuit Court for Howard County Maryland, case number 13C-09079000; b. Geesing v. Laur, Circuit Court for St. Marys County, Maryland, case number 18-C09-001338; c. Geesing v. Lembach, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, case number 002C09145252; d. Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, case number 321204V; and e. Geesing v. Nachbar, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, case number 318239V. 30. The affidavits containing Jacob Geesing and notary signatures in the aforementioned cases reveals a variation in signatures. See Attached Exhibit E 31. As evidenced in the aforementioned cases, it was established that there is a variation in signatures by a Forensic Examiner. (See In Re: Jacob Geesing v. Matthew Palmer 13C-09079000 filed in Howard County, Maryland) Further, it was opined that in the aforementioned cases, that four different people signed Geesings name and two different people signed Notary Rodnita Moultons name. (See In Re: Jacob Geesing v. Matthew Palmer 13C-09-079000 filed in Howard County, Maryland) 32. The execution of Plaintiffs Jacob Geesings name by four different people and two different people executing Notary Rodnita Moultons name constitutes a fraud on the courts in which these cases were filed and further shows this Court, that Plaintiff Jacob Gessings actions in this instant matter, as well as statements and affidavits made by him should be called into question. 33. Furthermore, it has also come to the Defendants attention that the Maryland Secretary of State has recently conducted investigation into the improper certification and attestation of documents from Plaintiff Jacob Geesings law firm. In the past three years, at minimum, the Secretary of State has decommissioned four notaries that were employed by this Plaintiffs law firm and refused to re-commission one other. (See In Re: Jacob Geesing v. Matthew Palmer 13C-09-079000 filed in Howard County, Maryland)

34. In light of this information, Defendants do question the validity of Plaintiffs Jacob Geesings signature on the affidavits filed in this case and question whether or not he truly executed all of the affidavits in this instant matter. 35. Further, in light of the fact that Defendants never received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose, Notice of Foreclosure Action, or any other Notices, or correspondence of any kind (as docketed as being sent out) from Plaintiffs until May 1, 2012, one can easily construe that it is quite possible that an error occurred and Plaintiffs failed to properly send out these notices to Defendants, which has been to their detriment. FAILURE OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, UNFAIR AND UNACCEPTABLE LOAN SERVICING AND BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. That the subject Propertys Deed of Trust filed on March 20, 2007 provides that there are rules that the lender must follow in the event the Borrower defaults. These rules are outlined as #22 in the Deed of Trust under Acceleration and clearly state that Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrowers breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument (but not prior to acceleration under Section 18 unless applicable law provides otherwise). The notice shall specify: (a) the default, (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured 37. Plaintiffs, only notified Defendants by sending out a Notice of Impending Sale dated April 27, 2012 (Attached Exhibit D) that a foreclosure sale on the Property had been scheduled to take place on May 23, 2012. This notice was received by Defendants on or about May 1, 2012 and is in breach of the agreement made in the Deed of Trust as said date provides for less than 30 days in which Defendants/Borrowers are allowed to cure the default. 38. Plaintiffs intentionally failed to act in good faith or to deal fairly with the subject Defendants by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential single-family mortgage servicing as described herein, thereby denying Defendants access to the residential mortgage servicing protocols applicable to the subject note and mortgage. 39. On February 18, 2009, pursuant to their authority under the Act, the Treasury Secretary and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency created the Making Home Affordable MHA initiative to help at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by restructuring their mortgages. 7

40. The Home Affordable Modification Program, (HAMP), is the portion of the MHA initiative that provides mandatory directives for implementation, and with which IndyMac Mortgage Services has yet to comply insomuch as not allowing the Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain a permanent modification under HAMP. HAMP creates a uniform loan modification protocol, and provides financial incentives for participating servicers to modify loans of which the IndyMac Mortgage Services is listed as a participating servicer. 41. IndyMac Mortgage Services servicing guidelines clearly show that it participates in the MHA initiative, and that it has adopted the guidelines set forth in the Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, the Handbook. The Handbook specifically informs servicers what options to give to borrowers. It also contains a default hierarchy of default curing options that the lender must follow including: a. Modification under HAMP; b. Lender Proprietary Modification (non-MHA); c. Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA); i. Short Sale ii. Deed-In-Lieu of Foreclosure 42. Pursuant to the aforementioned servicing guidelines, IndyMac Mortgage Services is required to present all loss mitigations options to Plaintiffs prior to the acceleration of the note and the posting of the property for foreclosure sale. 43. In this instant matter, Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services has unjustifiably denied and/or avoided giving Defendants a permanent modification by engaging in evasive conduct and blatant disregard to the MHA initiative. As a result, Defendants has had to incur hefty fees and interest on their loan and have been wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to cure their delinquency, have not been afforded the opportunities of HAMP, HAFA, or any other alternative loss mitigation option. UNFAIR DEBT COLLECTION and Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.) 43. Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services on its own and by and through its agent and counsel, This is not to suggest that a lender must provide a modification for each borrower who requests one. However,
since the lenders servicing guidelines and the security instrument requires the lender to provide the options to cure the default prior to acceleration, and since BAC is required by the Treasury Department to offer the HAMP as one of

these options, the loan cannot be accelerated and foreclosed until a decision is reached on each of the options presented.

has failed to follow the prescriptions of the FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA). The ACT provides in pertinent part, Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumers right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g (5) (b). By providing less than 30 days in which Defendants are allowed to cure the default, IndyMac Mortgage Services has violated the FDCPA. 44. Plaintiffs and their law firm, has violated the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. 1692e(5)) by threatening to take and actually taking action that they could not take in that they docketed this foreclosure action with the knowledge that they were improperly supporting the docketing with false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavits. 45. Furthermore, that the false, fabricated, and/or counterfeit affidavit filed by Plaintiff Jacob Geesing in support of the docketing of this foreclosure is a false representation or a deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a consumer debt in violation of FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) and 1692f. 46. Defendants have suffered damages as the direct result of the violation of the FDCPA by Plaintiffs and irreparable harm has been caused to them. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MARYLAND REAL PROPERTY ARTICLE, 7-105.1 or 7-105.2 47. Real Prop., 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 mandate that certain notices, documents, statements, and affidavits be provided to mortgagors, homeowners, and third parties during the foreclosure process. Additionally, Real Prop., 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 mandate that certain of these notices, documents, statements, and affidavits be filed with the court in which the foreclosure is to be filed or has been filed. Each requirement of 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 is a statutory condition precedent to docketing a foreclosure, conducting a foreclosure sale, or ratifying a foreclosure sale. 48. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the provisions of Real Prop., 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 in that they knowingly and willfully filed false, fabricated, and counterfeit documents in support of the Order to Docket in this instant case. 9

49. Each such false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavit or statement is, at best, a nullity and, as a condition precedent, enjoins Plaintiffs from continuing with a foreclosure sale. 50. Defendants have suffered as a direct result of the failure of Plaintiffs to comply with the provisions of Real Prop., 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 and their implementing Rules. NEGLIGENCE 51. The Plaintiffs had both a legal and an equitable fiduciary duty to the Defendants. 52. The Plaintiff Jacob Geesing and his law group, individually and collectively, knowingly made the decision to become substitute trustees with all of the responsibilities and obligation of a substitute trustee. 53. Upon the docketing of this foreclosure, Plaintiffs had a responsibility to the Defendants to comply with Maryland statutes and Maryland Rules pertinent to the foreclosure process. 54. Among the duties voluntarily assumed by Plaintiffs were the duties to comply with Real Prop., 7-105.1, 7-105.2 and 7-305 and Maryland Rules, Title 14. 55. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the provisions of Real Prop., 7-105.1, 7-105.2, 7-305 and Maryland Rules, Title 14 in this instant matter. 56. Each such fabricated or counterfeit affidavit, statement, or Report of Sale is, at best, a nullity and, as a condition precedent, prevents a valid foreclosure action. 57. Plaintiffs failure to comply with Real Prop., 7-105.1, 7-105.2, 7-305 and Maryland Rules, Title 14, is negligence per se. 58. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing has breached his fiduciary duties to the Defendants in that they have filed a false, fabricated, or counterfeit document in this instant matter. 59. The conduct of Plaintiff Jacob Geesing not only in this instant matter but in all foreclosure cases in which they are named Plaintiff-Trustee has injured the public interest. 60. Defendants have suffered damages as the direct result of the negligence of this Plaintiff. VIOLATION OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (MCPA) (MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW., 13-101, ET SEQ.) 10

61. The Defendants are each a consumer as that term is defined by MCPA. 62. Plaintiffs are each a debt collector as that term is de-fined by MCPA. 63. Maryland law requires that trustees attempting to foreclose on real property be natural persons. No requirement is made that said trustees be attorneys. 64. Plaintiffs have violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) by claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce rights with the knowledge that the right did not exist. 65. A violation of MCDCA is a violation of MCPA. 66. The Defendants have each suffered damages, including emotional damages, as the direct result of Plaintiffs violations of the MCDCA and MCPA. INADEQUATE HUD COUNSELING NOTICE 67. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701X(c)(5), under which Plaintiffs are required to complete pre-foreclosure counseling for the Defendants. As qualified homeowners, Defendants should have been notified of their eligibility for this counseling within the prescribed time limits, but instead are being denied this information. The provision of this counseling is an affirmative obligation for the Plaintiffs, the failure of which prevents a valid foreclosure action. DEFENSES TO ACCELERATION AND FORECLOSURE SALE 68. The security instrument provides that the Borrowers may bring an action in court to assert any defense to acceleration and foreclosure sale. The fact that Borrowers may assert any defense, naturally contemplates that both legal and equitable defenses can be raised. In this posture, the Defendants plead as though they were Plaintiffs to both Jacob Geesings and IndyMac Mortgage Services charge that a default and therefore, a breach of contract of the Defendants existed. 69. In pleading this defense, the Defendants allege that Plaintiffs intentionally relinquished its right to accelerate the loan and sell the subject property under a Power of Sale. Waiver of a right can be established expressly or by a partys conduct (i.e. when a partys conduct is inconsistent 11

with intent to claim a right). Once a contract is breached, the non-breaching party may waive their claim to breach by either (1) showing conscience intent to do so or (2) by acting to induce the defendants detrimental reliance, thereby creating an estoppel situation. 70. Prior to the issuance of the Notice of Impending Foreclosure Sale and the Order to Docket, along with accompanying affidavits, Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services offered to consider Defendants for a permanent modification under HAMP and even accepted payments under a trial modification plan. In offering an alternative to foreclosure, Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services through conscious intent and action, waived its right to proceed with foreclosure until it properly considered the Defendants for all available loss mitigation options. 71. Quasi-Estoppel. The Defendants assert a claim under the Defense to Acceleration and Foreclosure clause in Paragraph 22 of the Deed of Trust of quasi-estoppel. Also known as Estoppel by Conduct, this cause of action prohibits Plaintiffs from asserting a right, to the disadvantage of the Defendants that is inconsistent with a position previously taken by Plaintiffs. IndyMac Mortgage Services choose to Participate in the MHA program as well as to provide proprietary foreclosure and loss mitigation alternative options. This position taken by IndyMac Mortgage Services recognizes the curing of default through a modification, by short sale, or by allowing a Borrower to sign a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure as a more productive and less expensive way rather than foreclosure. As such, the first two elements of a quasi-estoppel; acquiescence and a benefit are satisfied. 72. Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services has ignored the Handbook when it failed to consider the Defendants requests for the available relief options. This position is completely inconsistent with its prior offer to consider Defendants under the various loss mitigation options in order to cure the default of the loan. Plaintiffs actions were in direct contravention of the foreclosure preventative alternatives espoused in its advertisements to consumers. This inconsistent position satisfies the third element of a quasi-estoppel. 73. It would be unconscionable to permit Plaintiffs to maintain this position and move forward with a foreclosure sale and would cause irreparable harm to Defendants. The Defendants took Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services at its word, believing that it would consider Plaintiffs for a permanent modification and other available alternative loss mitigation options. The Defendants relied upon Plaintiff IndyMac Mortgage Services representations to help save their home from 12

foreclosure. Allowing this Plaintiff to ignore its obligations to the Defendants would be unconscionable and unjust. UNCLEAN HANDS 74. The Plaintiffs come to court with unclean hands and should therefore be prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure. The Plaintiffs unclean hands result from the Plaintiffs improvident and predatory intentional failure to comply with material terms of the mortgage and note. The failure to comply with the default loan servicing requirements that apply to this loan, are described herein. As a matter of equity, this Court should refuse to foreclose this mortgage because acceleration of the note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration unconscionable. This Court should refuse the acceleration and deny foreclosure because Plaintiffs waived their rights to do so and/or is estopped from doing so because of misleading conduct and unfulfilled contractual and equitable conditions. DECLARATORY RELIEF 75. Defendants reaffirm paragraphs 1 through 74 hereinabove as if set forth more fully herein below: 76. This is an action for declaratory relief which is being brought pursuant to applicable law to declare that Plaintiffs have no legal or equitable rights to pursue or maintain foreclosure on the Property. 77. It is the Defendants contention that Plaintiffs conduct in prosecuting foreclosures, including the matter herein before this Court unlawful and not in compliance with Maryland statutes and Maryland Rules. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs conduct is illegal, in contravention of Maryland statutes, and in contravention of Maryland Rules. 78. The declaration by this Court that Plaintiffs have no legal right and cannot satisfy the legal standing requirements to institute and maintain a foreclosure is proper subject matter for declaratory relief. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 79. Defendants reaffirm paragraphs 1 through 78 hereinabove as if set forth more fully herein below: 80. This is an action for emergency injunctive relief which is brought pursuant to applicable law. 13

81. Defendants have a clear legal right to seek injunctive relief as Defendants reside in the Property and as Plaintiffs are seeking, without satisfying the necessary legal standing requirements to institute a foreclosure, to take possession, custody, and control of the Property and ultimately remove the Defendants from their home. 82. Defendants have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm complained of, and the sale of the Defendants Property, under the circumstances of record, is contrary to equity and good conscience in that such sale is being instituted by parties who have no legal standing to institute or maintain the foreclosure ab initio. 83. The specific facts set forth herein demonstrate that unless an Injunction against the foreclosure sale set for May 23, 2012 is not granted, that Defendants will suffer irreparable injury, loss, and damage of the loss of their home. 84. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs do not have proper legal standing to initiate and/or maintain a foreclosure of the Property and no harm to said Plaintiffs upon the granting of the relief requested would occur, and any claimed harm is substantially outweighed by the irreparable harm to the Defendants if such relief that is requested is not granted. 85. Under these circumstances where there is no foreseen irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs with the granting of the requested relief, no costs or other damages which could be contemplated on the part of Defendants should be necessary. 86. Further, Defendants do hereby disavows any and all implied and/or conferred and/or inferred understanding of legalese terms now and at the time of signing of any and all documents pertaining to this action. 87. Defendants are appearing Pro se, and pray that not only will their Motion/Petition/Complaint be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. In Re. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but at minimum, they should be allowed to amend their Motion/Petition/Complaint to correct any and all deficiencies in the causes filed. 88. Probability of Recovery. The Defendants have alleged facts that clearly show Plaintiffs 14

non-compliance with the terms of the Deed of Trust and MHA, when it issued the Notice of Impending Foreclosure Sale without giving the Defendants the full opportunity to cure the default. These facts show that Defendants are entitled to relief hereunder.

89. Imminent and Irreparable Harm. Defendants will suffer imminent and irreparable harm if the Plaintiffs are allowed to move forward with the foreclosure sale scheduled for May 23, 2012. In that event, Defendants will be forced to find another place to live, which includes relocating to an unknown environment; and they would not be able to seek the relief to which they are entitled. DAMAGES 90. As a result of Plaintiffs breach of contract, broken promises, negligence, and violation of the FDCPA, Violation of the MCPA, HUD, MHA, and their failure to comply with Maryland Real Property Article 7-105.1 or 7-105.2, Defendants have suffered mental anguish and therefore, seek to prohibit the Plaintiffs from moving forward with a foreclosure sale and seek compensatory damages for the mental anguish they have suffered and lost incentives that have not been afforded to them. In addition, Defendants seek statutory damages against the Plaintiffs as provided for under the law for all of the violations stated herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants humbly ask this Court to at minimum, set this matter for hearing, issue a Temporary/Permanent Injunction against the Plaintiffs, precluding them from moving forward with the sale scheduled for May 23, 2012, until the merits of this suit are fully decided. Defendants Motion and Petition is authorized under the law as such an order is necessary to preserve the property that is the subject of this suit until the suit is resolved by order or judgment. Further that the court adjudge: (a) that the attempt by Plaintiffs to conduct a foreclosure sale of the Property is legally defective and precluded from enforcement; (b) that the matter of foreclosure be stayed/dismissed pending investigation to determine the proper sanction for Plaintiffs misconduct and/or until such time as all of the loss mitigation and modification opportunities have been afforded to the Defendants herein; (c) Order full discovery pursuant to Maryland Rules of Circuit Court; (In the event that the Plaintiffs dispute their obligation to provide such servicing, and/or disputes its involvement with the Financial Stability Plan, the Court should order that an evidentiary hearing be held on the matter and that no dispositive 15

motions be heard until such time as a hearing can be held.) (d) that the Defendants be awarded actual compensatory or statutory damages, costs, and any and all other relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, to which Defendants may be entitled under the law and for such

other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated this 17th day of May, 2012 By: _____________________________ Marylu Carranza, Plaintiff, Pro Se _____________________________ Luis Castillo, Plaintiff, Pro Se VERIFICATION State of Maryland Montgomery County Before me, the undersigned notary, on this ____ day of May, 2012, personally appeared Marylu Carranza and Luis Castillo, whose identities were provided to me as such ______________________________ and _____________________________. After I administered an oath to them, upon such, they stated that they fully read the aforementioned Motion/Petition/Complaint and that the facts stated herein are within their personal knowledge and belief and are true and correct to the best of their personal knowledge and belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me on this ____ day of May, 2012. ________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland My commission expires: ______________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on this day of May 17, 2012 they have furnished an original hereof and applicable copies to the Clerk of the Court in Montgomery County, Maryland and a true copy of this document has been over-nighted, return-receipt acknowledged to the following: IndyMac Mortgage Services Home Loan Servicing 6900 Beatrice Drive Kalamazoo, MI 49009-4045 Jacob Geesing, Plaintiff-Trustee 4520 East-West Highway, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 BWW Law Group, LLC Appointed Subsitute Trustees and attorneys for Plaintiffs OneWest Bank, DBA IndyMac Mortgage Services Corporate Headquarters Attn: Terry Laughlin, President And Chief Executive Officer 888 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101

16

4520 East-West Highway, Suite 2 Bethesda, MD 20814

______________________________ Marylu Carranza, Defendant Pro Se 12116 Skip Jack Drive Germantown, MD 20874 240-408-0877

___________________________ Luis Castillo, Defendant Pro Se 12116 Skip Jack Drive Germantown, MD 20874 240-408-0877

EXHIBIT A PG 1-3

17

EXHIBIT A PG 2-3
18

EXHIBIT A PG 3-3
19

20

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C
21

EXHIBIT D
22

EXHIBIT E Pg 1-2
23

a. Geesing v. Palmer
Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Deed Of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

Report of Sale

b. Geesing v. Laur
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

c. Geesing v. Lembach
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee

EXHIBIT E Pg 2-2
24

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee

d. Geesing v. Stewart
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

e. Geesing v. Nachbar
Report of Sale

Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

25