LAURA M. RYS, ESQ.

NJ Bar ID# 012381993

49 Route 202
Post Office Box 608
Far Hills, New Jersey 07931
(908) 328-2761 Office
(908) 375-8106 Facsimile
Attorney for the Plaintiffs,
Jerry Lee Gaskins
Edith Magliore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JERRY LEE GASKINS,

EDITH MAGLIORE,

Case No. 2:12-cv-06682 (DMC (JAD)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
FRAUD & DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP; BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., successor by merger to BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP, FKA
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP; Cynthia Santos, an
individual; and Does 1-5, inclusive,
Defendants.

COMES NOW, Jerry Lee Gaskins and Edith Magliore, by and through their
attorney of record, Laura M. Rys, Esq., NJ Bar Id 012381993, (hereinafter,
Plaintiffs), complaining and alleging as follows:

Page
1

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

This First Amended Complaint seeks damages for fraud, and

declaratory relief with regard to a federally judicially created rule of law. Put
simply, the beneficial interests in the Promissory Note and the Mortgage have
been irrevocably split, rendering the Mortgage in this case unenforceable
and the NOTE unsecured, but still enforceable.
2.

Worse, MERS and BAC Home Loans and their agents have

engaged in outright fraud to appear to have the right, title and authority they
claim while actively attempting to sell the real property the Mortgage used to
secure.
II.
3.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs Gerry Lee Gaskins and Edith Magliore (Plaintiffs) are both

citizens of the State of New Jersey, Essex County, who, at all times relevant to this
Verified First Amended Complaint, has been the recorded owner of the real property
located at 225 Hartshorn Drive, Short Hills, NJ 07078-3225.
4.

Defendant COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, (CWB) was a Federal

Savings Bank who merged with the Red Oak Merger Corporation in 2008, thereafter
ceasing to exist.
5.

Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,

Inc. (MERS) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, its
principal place of business located at 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, VA
20190.

Page
2

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6.

Defendant MERS is sued in its corporate capacity as a corporation

organized and operating under the Laws of Delaware.

7.

Defendant

BAC

HOME

LOANS

SERVICING,

LP,

FKA

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, (BAC) was a limited

partnership, organized under the laws of the State of Texas. BAC as a subsidiary of
Bank of America, N.A.. However, effective July 1, 2011, BAC Home Loans Servicing,
LP merged with and into Bank of America, N.A., leaving Bank of America, N.A. only.
8.

Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., (BofA) is a National

Association, organized and operating under the National Bank Act, claiming status as
successor by merger to BAC, with BofAs principle place of business located at 100
North Tryon St., 18th Fl, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28255.
9.

Defendant Cynthia Santos, (SANTOS) is an individual, believed to

reside in the State of California, employed by Defendant MERS, and is sued in her
individual capacity as citizen of the State of California.
10.

Plaintiffs are currently unaware of the exact names and capacities of

numerous individual defendants who have taken culpable actions as agents, assigns,
attorney in fact, and authorized representatives of other named, corporate defendants,
so Plaintiff names those Defendants as DOES 1-5.
III.
11.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has Subject Matter jurisdiction over the claims in this case

pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), 2202 and

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 57, as the case solely involves a federally judicially created rule of law.

Page
3

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12.

This Court has further jurisdiction in this case with regard to all

Defendants under and pursuant to 28 U.S.C., 1332 and Article III, Section 2, of the
United States Constitution, diversity of jurisdiction, as follows: MERS & BAC because
MERS is organized and operating from Delaware, BAC is organized and operating
from the State of Texas, with its new merged into corporation, Defendant Bank of
America, N.A being based out of Triton, North Carolina, and further being a National
Association, a creature of federal law organized and operating under the National
Bank Act, Defendants SANTOS and UNSWORTH are citizens of the State of
California, with UNSWORTH an official California State notary public, and the
Plaintiffs are a Citizen of the State of New Jersey.
13.

This Court has further jurisdiction in this case under and pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1332, with regard to all Defendants, as a federally judicially
created rule law forms an essential element, substantial ingredient and/or a potential
ingredient of the original cause in this case.
14.

This Court has further jurisdiction in this case with regard to all

Defendants under and pursuant to 28 U.S.C., 1332, as the amount in controversy is

greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
15.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), this Court has

personal jurisdiction over all Defendants, and Venue is proper, as each could be
subjected to the jurisdiction of New Jersey State, the district this Court, Plaintiffs, and
the Subject Property are all located.

IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Page
4

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16.

Plaintiffs are the recorded owner of the real property at issue in this case,

evidenced by a DEED, executed by Domingo M. Aviado and Asuncion G. Aviado on

December 1, 2004, to Jerry Lee Gaskins and Edith Magliore, husband and wife,
recorded in the Essex County Recorders Office under Instrument No. 1141426
describing the property commonly as 225 Hartshorn Road in the Town of Short Hills,
County of Essex, State of New Jersey. The legal description is:
All that certain Lot, piece of parcel of land, with the buildings and
improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Township
of Milburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey:
BEGINNING on the southerly side of Hartshorn Drive, at a point therein
distant 181.93 feet easterly from the corner formed by the intersection of
the said side of Hartshorn Drive with the easterly side of Highland
Avenue, and thence running (1) along the said southerly side of
Hartshorn Drive North 69 degrees 55 mimutes East 117.65 feet to a
point; thence (2) still along the said southerly side of Hartshorn Drive
North 56 degrees 39 minutes East 2.94 feet to a point; thence (3) South
15 degrees 40 minutes East 80.33 feet to a point; thence (4) North 56
degrees 39 minutes East 78.40 feet to a point I the westerly side of
Parsonage Hill Road; thence (5) along the said westerly side of Parsonage
Hill Road South 26 degrees 59 minutes East 93.73 feet to a point; thence
(6) South 54 degrees 41 minutes West 196.58 feet to a point; thence (7)
North 23 degrees 28 minutes 40 seconds West 206.50 feet to the
aforesaid side of Hartshorn Drive and the point and place of
BEGINNING.
Block No. 3001, Lot No. 5. Request For Judicial Notice, (RJN) at Exhibit 1.
17.

On August 27, 2007, Plaintiffs entered into a purported mortgage

transactions evidenced by a Promissory Note, (NOTE) and Mortgage. CWB was

named as the Lender on the NOTE and Mortgage, is named the Note Holder in the
NOTE, and the address listed for CWB on the NOTE is the same address Plaintiffs
were directed to make their payments to. Exhibits 1 and RJN Exhibit 2, NOTE and
Mortgage, respectively.
Page
5

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18.

Defendant MERS was named the beneficiary on the Mortgage, but

solely as nominee for CWB, and there are no documents on record which evidence
Defendant MERS having any interest whatsoever in the Plaintiffs NOTE.
19.

On October 24, 2007, the Mortgage was recorded in book 12095, page

3528, under Instrument No. 7128773, in the Essex County Recorders Office. Id.
20.

Between August 27, 2007, and September 1, 2007, CWB attempted to

sell Plaintiffs loan into a securitization transaction involving the pooling of a vast
number of loans, but failed to comply with numerous mandatory legal and contractual
requirements to actually do so.
21.

On May 10, 2011, Cynthia Santos, Assistant Secretary for MERS,

executed an ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE (AOM) from itself to Defendant

BAC, with the language in the AOM purporting to sell, for value received, all
beneficial interest in the Mortgage and the NOTE. RJN Exhibit 3.
22.

On May 17, 2011, the AOM was recorded under Instrument No.

11037955 in the Essex County Recorders Office.

23.

Thereafter, Defendant BAC, the assignee on the AOM, attempted to

enforce the NOTE.

24.

Prior to the execution, acknowledgment and recordation said Mortgage,

MERS own CEO, R.K. Arnold testified, under oath, that MERS holds no beneficial or
other interest in the NOTEs the Deeds of Trust which it is named the nominee
beneficiary are an incident to:
By Mr. Wooten: But, I mean, your whole MERS as mortgagee
system is built upon the premise that you never make a loan?
Answer R.K.: We never make a loan.
Page
6

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

By Mr. Wooten: And you never have the right to collect any
money on any mortgage loan?
Answer R.K.: Do not.
Deposition at page 96
By Mr. Wooten: I want to ask you again, is it your position
that your company owns the lien?
. . .
Answer R.K.: We hold the lien interest.
By Mr. Wooten: What is - Answer R.K.: We're the mortgagee - By Mr. Wooten: I'm sorry. What is the lien interest?
Answer R.K.: It's the mortgage interest. We're the mortgagee
of record.
By Mr. Wooten: What is the mortgagee? I mean, is that the
person who has the lien?
Answer R.K.: It's bare legal title.
. . .
By R.K. Arnold: Well, there would need to be an assignment
out of MERS.
By Mr. Wooten: How would that be accomplished?
By R.K. Arnold: A MERS certifying officer of the member
would execute an assignment out of MERS and that would be
recorded in the land records.
By Mr. Wooten: And that certifying officer who made that
assignment, he would be -- he would be assigning everything
that MERS owned; right?
By R.K. Arnold: But he would be assigning the mortgage
interest.
By Mr. Wooten: And who owns that?
By R.K. Arnold: Well, the ownership of that is something that
I've had a problem with since the start of the deposition. It's -it's a -it's a status. It is the mortgagee. It's a legal interest.
Page
7

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

By Mr. Wooten: Is it -- is it your understanding that a party

could theoretically assign an interest that they do not own?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the question. Calls for
theory.
By Mr. Wooten: I mean, isn't it a fundamental law a
fundamental principle that you can only assign what you
actually own?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form.
By R.K. Arnold: Yes.
By Mr. Wooten: So a recorded MERS assignment is an
assignment of whatever MERS owns?
By R.K. Arnold: Well, you're -- you want to say that MERS
owns the legal interest. And, you know, MERS -- MERS
assigns the legal interest. Ownership -- I'm not really sure what
that word means in this context.

See RJN at Exhibit 4, Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Alabama, Debra A.

Henderson v. Merscorp, Inc., Et Al., Case No. CV-08-900805.00.
25.

On the above factual basis, the Plaintiffs alleged Defendant MERS had

no interest at all in the NOTE, BAC received absolutely nothing with regard to the
NOTE via the AOM, but MERS did sell, (and BAC did receive), all of MERS interest
in the Mortgage via the AOM
26.

In this manner, the Defendants split the recorded interest in the NOTE

and Mortgage securing any purported debt obligations in that NOTE.

27.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding

these facts, and the rights and obligations of Plaintiffs with regard to the DOT and
NOTE.
28.

In response to the complaint, Defendant MERS filed a motion to dismiss

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Page
8

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

29.

With their motion, MERS submitted an alleged, Affidavit of a Mr.

Paul Meyers, swearing to work for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as a Loan Analyst.
RJN Exhibit 5.
30.

Mr. Meyers swore Ocwen was the mortgage loan servicer of loan

number 7130620409, stating a true and correct copy of the NOTE was attached to his
affidavit. However, said affidavit is bearing a different Loan Number than exists on
the original NOTE, with three separate undated endorsements, with the last
indorsement in blank. 1
31.

Given the fact Countrywide Bank, FSB (CB FSB) is the stated

Lender on the NOTE, the order appears to be as follows:

a. Indorsement by Laurie Meder, senior vice president of CB FSB, to
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., (CHL);
b. Indorsement by Michelle Sjolander, Executive Vice President of
CHL to CB FSB;
c. Indorsment by Laurie Meder, Senior Vice President of CB FSB, to
no one the indorsement is blank.
32.

Michele Sjolander was deposed on Wednesday, January 25, 2012, in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
Division, In the Matter of: Clinton E. Kirby v. Bank of America, Case No. 2:09-CV00182-DCB-JMR. RJN Exhibit 6.
33.

In that deposition testimony, Ms. Sjolander swore under oath that:

a. She did not place the endorsement on the note in that case;
b. She is not even allowed into the area where endorsing is supposedly
done2 without an escort;

1
2

Plaintiff moves for limited discovery requesting the original Note to be produced.
At a Recontrust Company, N.A. building.

Page
9

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

c. She does not know the name of the person who supposedly did place
the endorsement on the note;
d. The endorsement is placed on the notes with a rubber stamp onto
which is carved her name, and all the other information that appears
on the endorsement;
e. This endorsement stamp is a two-part stamp, the first part has
Laurie Meders Name for CB FSB, and the second has Michele
Sjolanders name for CHL.
34.

The Countrywide Bank, FSB endorsement to Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc. (using Laurie Meders name) and the Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. to blank
endorsement (using Michele Sjolanders name) is a single stamp that is purportedly
placed on notes by employees of Recontrust. That is why the two endorsements line up
perfectly.
35.

Mrs. Sjolander admitted that there is no way to know for sure when the

endorsement on the note was placed there, and she has no personal knowledge of when
or if the notes are actually stamped at the Recontrust vaults. See RJN Exhibit 6.
36.

Finally, the Public Record evidences an Agreement and Plan of

Merger by and among Countrywide Financial Corporation, (as the Company),

Bank Of America Corporation (as the Parent) and Red Oak Merger Corporation,
(as the Merger Sub), dated as of January 11, 2008, downloadable from the following
web address:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/25191/000089882208000107/exhibit21.htm.
See RJN Exhibit 7.
37.

There, CWB merged into the Red Oak Merger Corporation, (ROMC),

with the ROMC as the surviving company in the merger.

Page
10

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

38.

This fact is not apparent on the face of the NOTE, as only the rubber-

stamped endorsements of Michelle Sjolander and Laurie Meder appear the NOTE
submitted with the Affidavit of Paul Meyers does not contain an endorsement from the
ROMC nor any person acting on behalf of it.
39.

Worse, the ROMC is not a MERS Member.

V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR FRAUD Two Counts
(Against All Defendants)
40.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs by this

specific reference as if fully reproduced herein.

Count I Defendant MERS, Santos and Underwood.
41.

On or about May 10, 2011, Defendant MERS, through Cynthia Santos,

(operating in the official capacity of MERS Assistant Secretary) represented in

writing on the AOM that For Value Received, MERS sold all beneficial interest in
the Mortgage and in the NOTE to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, FKA
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP.
42.

Defendant Underwood affixed his official notary signature and stamp,

authenticating Santos signature, and acting as the required catalyst for the AOM to be
recorded in the Essex County Recorders Office.
43.

These representations were false, as MERS never possessed a modicum

of interest in the NOTE.

Page
11

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

44.

These representations were false because CWB and CHL no longer

existed at the time of the AOM, and only the ROMC existed.
45.

On May 17, 2011, at 9:01 a.m., MERS caused the AOM to be recorded

as Instrument No. 11057955, Book 12312, Page 219 in the official records of the
Essex County Recorders Office, and in this manner, MERS communicated the written
misrepresentations on the AOM to Plaintiffs, the General Public, and the Essex
County Recorder.
46.

At the time of these representations, MERS knew the statements were

false, yet made and communicated or caused such to be communicated to Plaintiffs

with the intent Plaintiffs and the Essex County Recorder would rely upon the false
statements as being true, and Plaintiffs suffer damages therefrom.
47.

Plaintiffs and the Essex County Recorder justifiably relied upon MERS

written misrepresentations of material fact insofar as MERS is the literal nominee

beneficiary on their Mortgage, it is the entity claiming to be the electronic mortgage
system for the entire country, and Plaintiffs believed MERS had a basic duty to
represent truthful information to Plaintiffs, and not withhold material information.
48.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MERS actions, and in

justifiably relying upon MERS written misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiffs

suffered damages the form of being completely unable to identify the chain-of-title to
the ownership interest in the lien against the Subject Property, being unable to contact
said real owner for the purposes of being considered for a number of applicable loan
modification programs, in the form of sleeplessness, severe emotional, mental and

Page
12

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

psychological distress, legal and other fees, and lost work from taking the time to
research and attempt to right the wrong committed by MERS.
49.

Plaintiffs are entitled to actual, general, specific, compensatory and

statutory damages, along with restitution, together totaling $1,300,000.00 or an

amount to be proven at trial.
50.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary or punitive damages of

$3,900,000.00 to punish Defendant MERS and ensure no other Defendants or persons

take the same course of action in the future.
Count II BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, FKA Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing, LP
51.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs by this

specific reference as if fully reproduced herein.

52.

On or about May 10, 2011, Defendant BAC, through an individual or

individuals still unknown to Plaintiff, directed MERS or an individual who was or

claimed to be an Authorized Signatory of MERS to create the representations in
writing on the AOM that, For Value Received, MERS sold all beneficial interest
in the Mortgage and in the NOTE to Defendant BAC.
53.

These representations were false, with the true facts being that MERS

never held all beneficial interests in the Mortgage nor any interest in the NOTE for
BAC to buy, CWB no longer existed, and the ROMC had never endorsed the NOTE.
54.

On May 17, 2011, at 9:01 a.m., BAC directed MERS or an as-yet-

identified-entity or person to cause the AOM to be recorded as Instrument No.

11057955, Book 12312, Page 219 in the official records of the Essex County
Recorders Office, and in this manner, BAC communicated the written
Page
13

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

misrepresentations on the AOM to Plaintiffs, the General Public and the Essex County
Recorder. At the time of these representations, BAC knew they were false, yet made
and communicated or caused such to be communicated to Plaintiffs anyway, with the
intent Plaintiffs, the General Public and the Essex County Recorder rely upon the false
statements as being true, and that Plaintiffs suffer damages therefrom.
55.

Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon BAC written misrepresentations of

material fact insofar as BAC is a direct subsidiary of Bank of America, appears to

have succeeded the industry juggernaut, Countrywide Bank, FSB, (the literal
beneficiary on their Mortgage and Lender on the Note), and Plaintiffs believed BAC
had a basic duty to represent truthful information to Plaintiffs, and not withhold
material information.
56.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MERS actions, and in

justifiably relying upon MERS written misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiffs

suffered damages the form of being completely unable to identify the chain-of-title to
the ownership interest in the lien against the Subject Property, being unable to contact
said real owner for the purposes of being considered for a number of applicable loan
modification programs, in the form of sleeplessness, sever emotional, mental and
psychological distress, lost work and time, legal and other fees in attempting right the
wrong committed by MERS.
57.

Plaintiffs are entitled to actual, general, specific, compensatory and

statutory damages, along with restitution, together totaling $1,300,000.00 or an

amount to be proven at trial.

Page
14

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

58.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary or punitive damages of

$3,900,000.00 to punish Defendant BAC and ensure no other Defendants or persons

take the same course of action in the future.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Against All Defendants)
59.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs by this

specific reference as if fully reproduced herein.

60.

The December 1, 2004 DEED is the recorded ownership, right, title and

interest in the Subject Property being vested in the Plaintiffs.

61.

The Mortgage dated August 27, 2007, recorded on October 24, 2007, as

Instrument No. 7128773 and the Assignment of Mortgage dated May 10, 2011,
recorded on May 10, 2011 as Instrument No. 11037955 directly affect and cloud
Plaintiffs title to the Subject Property in the official records of the Essex County
Recorders Office. RJN at Exhibit 2.
62.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants, and each of them, have genuine and

opposing direct and substantial interests, as outlined above and in throughout this
Complaint, of which a judicial determination by this Court regarding the applicability
of a federally judicially created rule of law and resulting rights of the parties in this
case subsequent to such application will be final and conclusive.
63.

Ownership interest of the NOTE at issue in this case has been split

irreversibly, and on the record, from the same beneficial interest in the Mortgage
securing that NOTE.
Page
15

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

64.

The federally judicially created rule of law regarding a split in the

interests in the NOTE and Mortgage is the federal rule of law the Plaintiffs seek to
invoke in this case, based upon the extremely fact specific circumstances of this case.
65.

The irrevocable split, however, occurred here at the assignment phase.

In 2011, CWB and CHL no longer existed, with only the ROMC the surviving entity.
66.

However, there is no endorsement on the NOTE from the ROMC.

67.

Without an actual Note Holder further entitled to payment under the

NOTE whom MERS was working for at the time of the AOM in 2011, Defendant
MERS unilaterally purported to sell the NOTE For value received to Defendant
BAC. MERS did so while it held absolutely no right, title, interest in the NOTE. RJN
at Exhibit 3.
68.

The bare transfer of the interests in the Mortgage without the

corresponding transfer or sale of the underlying NOTE is insufficient for the assignee
on the AOM, (BAC), to enforce the NOTE.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment against Defendants
and each of them, as follows:
For the First Cause of Action, Count 1:
A. For an award of actual, consequential and compensatory damages against each
defendant jointly and severally in the amount of $1,300,000.00 or as proven at
trial;
B. For an award of exemplary and punitive damages against each defendant jointly
and severally in the amount of $3,900,000.00 or as proven at trial;
C. For an award of prejudgment interest according to the maximum rate of interest
permitted under law;
D. For costs of suit;
Page
16

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

E. For reasonable attorneys fees;

F. For any further relief the court and/or jury deems appropriate.
For the First Cause of Action, Count 2:
A. For an award of actual, consequential and compensatory damages against each
defendant jointly and severally in the amount of $1,300,000.00 or as proven at
trial;
B. For an award of exemplary and punitive damages against each defendant jointly
and severally in the amount of $3,900,000.00 or as proven at trial;
C. For an award of prejudgment interest according to the maximum rate of interest
permitted under law;
D. For costs of suit;
E. For reasonable attorneys fees;
F. For any further relief the court and/or jury deems appropriate.
For the Second Cause of Action:
A. For a declaration and judgment from this Court that the beneficial interests in
the Promissory Note have been irrevocably split from the beneficial interests in
the Mortgage;
B. For a declaration and judgment from this Court that the Mortgage is
unenforceable as a security instrument for the payment or any other obligation
in the August 27, 2007 Promissory Note;
C. For a declaration and judgment from this Court that the August 27, 2007
Promissory Note is herein judicially declared, unsecured but enforceable;
D. For costs of suit herein incurred;
E. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Date:
___________________________________
LAURA M. RYS, ESQ.
NJ BAR ID# 012381993
49 ROUTE 202 POST OFFICE BOX 608
FAR HILLS, NEW JERSEY 07931
(908) 328-2761 OFFICE
(908) 375-8106 FACSIMILE

Page
17

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

VERIFICATION
I, Jerry Lee Gaskins, and I, Edith Magliore, are the Plaintiffs in the aboveentitled action. We have each read the foregoing First Amended Complaint and know
the contents thereof. The same is true of our own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters,
we believe it to be true.
By our signatures below, we do hereby declare under penalty of perjury
pursuant to the Laws of the State of New Jersey that all the statements in the
Complaint are true, correct and complete to the best of our firsthand knowledge,
understanding and belief.
EXECUTED

this

___ day

of

September,

2013,

in

the

City

________________, County of ___________________, the State of New Jersey.

______________________________________
JERRY LEE GASKINS
PLAINTIFF AND DECLARANT
______________________________________
EDITH MAGLIORE
PLAINTIFF AND DECLARANT

Page
18

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

of