IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

RANDALL C. BYROM. Case Number

Plaintiff,

-Vs-

WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

Defendants.
__________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND FRAUD

Plaintiff RANDALL C. BYROM on his own behalf and as assignee of all right, title and

interest from DONALDA M. BYROM hereby sues Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.

(hereinafter “WELLS”),

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The actions which are the basis of this lawsuit, the institution and pursuit of a

wrongful residential mortgage foreclosure and fraud were committed by WELLS FARGO BANK,

NA, hereinafter referred to as Defendant or “WELLS” in MARTIN County, Florida.

2. The property which is the subject of this action is and whose common address is 975 SE,

St. Lucie Blvd, Stuart, FL 34996 and whose legal address is LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 7, BAY ST.

LUCIE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 57,

OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH (NOW MARTIN) COUNTY, FLORIDA.

PARTIES

3. DONALDA M. BYROM assigned all her rights, title and interest to this action to

RANDALL C. BYROM who is suing to recover her and his damages, now resides at 3553 SW

SUNSET TRACE CIRCLE, PALM CITY, Florida, 34990.

1|Page
 4. WELLS has its principal office at 90 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55479.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5. All conditions precedent to bring this action have been satisfied, discharged,

excused or otherwise waived.

6. On or about February 26th, 2001, Keven G. Blair and Cynthia A. Blair transferred by

Warranty Deed, Exhibit 1, their right, title and interest in the subject property to the Plaintiff’s

Randall C. Byrom and assignor Donalda M. Byrom, Husband and Wife, the parties have since

divorced and have amicably resolved their differences by the assignment of this claim and other

matters handled through the dissolution proceedings.

7. Exhibit 2 purports to be a copy of a mortgage recorded on February 26th, 2001, Instrument

Number 1483043, OR BK 01534, PG 1112, in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a defunct

entity which was seized by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency because of this, and a

multitude of other fraudulently created, obtained and fraudulently serviced mortgages. This

mortgage is void for fraud, criminal billing practices, unfair trade practices and felonious

misconduct in loan servicing.

8. Exhibit 3 purports to be a mortgage in favor of First Union National Bank, a now convicted

banking institution (employee of a commercial bank bribes a public official to obtain underwriting

privileges on three bond issues), after merger, violation of consent decrees with the OCC as

Defendant Wells Fargo.

9. Exhibit 4 is a mortgage deed between Robert M. Cutler, Joann M. Cutler, his wife and

Randall C. Byrom and Donalda M. Byrom, March 13th, 2003, recorded in the official records of

2|Page
this County, Instrument Number 1643301, OR BK 01742 PG 1779, recorded on March 17th, 2003,

Martin County, Florida.

10. Exhibit 5 is a Subordination Agreement, recorded on August 12th, 2003 executed

by Wachovia Bank, FKA known as First Union National Bank.

11. Exhibit 6 is a document purporting to be a mortgage in favor of the same criminal

institution, Washington Mutual Bank, FA, recorded in the official records on August 12th, 2003,

Instrument Number 1682225, OR Book 01800, PG 2185.

12. Exhibit 7 purports to be a Satisfaction of Mortgage, executed by Washington

Mutual and recorded in the official records of this County, Instrument Number 1688151, OR BK

01809 PG 1878, satisfying the Washington Mutual Mortgage instrument recorded on February7

26th, 2001, Instrument No. 1483043, in Book No. 01534 at Page No. 1112.

13. Exhibit 8 purports to be a Satisfaction of Mortgage, executed by Wachovia Bank,

National Association, FKA First Union National Bank, and recorded in the official records of this

County, Instrument Number 1924875, OR BK 02131 PG 2642, satisfying the Mortgage Deed

instrument recorded on March 13th, 2001, Instrument No. 1483043, in Book No. 01534 at Page

No. 1112 (Exhibit 4).

14. There is no recorded evidence which establishes that Wachovia Bank can record a

satisfaction on behalf of the beneficiary of the mortgage deed, Robert M. Cutler, Joann M. Cutler.

See Exhibit 4, and as such, is evidence of unclean hands, forgery and perjury, recording a false

and fraudulent document in the official records.

15. Exhibit 9 purports to be a World Savings Bank Pick a Payment mortgage,

Instrument Number 1834175, OR BK 02007 PG 1445, recorded on April 27th, 2005.

3|Page
 16. Exhibit 10 purports to be a Satisfaction of Mortgage, executed by two of the most

notorious robo-signers in history, Bryan Bly and Crystal Moore on behalf of Washington Mutual

Bank, FA, Instrument Number 1841764, OR BK 02016, PG 2706, satisfying the mortgage of

Washington Mutual Bank, FA, recorded in the official records, Book 1800, Page 2185, or Doc

1682225.

17. Wachovia Bank, National Association, FKA First Union National Bank, and

recorded in the official records of this County, Instrument Number 1924875, OR BK 02131 PG

2642, satisfying the Mortgage Deed instrument recorded on March 13th, 2001, Instrument No.

1483043, in Book No. 01534 at Page No. 1112 (Exhibit 4).

18. Exhibit 11 is Line of Credit Mortgage, Instrument Number 1922356, OR BK

02128, PG 0610, in favor of the disrepute Countrywide Home Loans.

19. Exhibit 12 is the lis pendens of the fraudulent foreclosure, Case Number 43-2010-

CA-002501, and recorded in the official records of this county, CFN 2238098, Book2481, Page

662.

20. Exhibit 13 is the consent final judgment that Defendant induced Plaintiff to enter

on the promise that he would save his house thru modification, did let the Plaintiff submit multiple

attempts to save his home, and each time, violated HAMP and the agreement between the

Government and World Savings Bank requiring them to help the Plaintiffs save their home, and

the express promise that he would receive $2,000 if he left. After leaving, they did not pay him

the money and in 2018 they forcibly took his home in direct violation of the law.

21. Plaintiff received neither, his home, a modification, loss mitigation, nor the $2,000.

22. That for all relevant matters alleged, Wells Fargo is liable for the actions of World

Savings Bank FSB, Wachovia Mortgage FSB and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. as the

4|Page
companies’ successor-in-interest, and Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages,

statutory relief, temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, costs of suit, pre- and post-

judgment interest, declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees for the conduct alleged herein.

23. Plaintiff was induced into entering the consent judgment with Wells Fargo in the

foreclosure action on the basis that Wells Fargo Promised to modify the loan with the Plaintiff,

committing the act of Dual Tracking, which is the pursuit of litigation at the same time as

promising loan modification.

24. That Wells Fargo induced the Plaintiff to enter the consent decree with the promise

that it would negotiate a loan modification in good faith, and keep the Plaintiff in his home.

25. That Wells Fargo induced Plaintiff to submit multiple loss mitigation applications

(no less than four) while promising that Plaintiff would not lose his home.

26. That Plaintiff performed all the obligations he was obligated to perform, except

those which he was specifically prevented from performing by reason of the conduct of the

Defendants and its prior breach.

27. That Wells Fargo, in the consent judgment, Wells Fargo promised to pay the

Plaintiff $2000.

28. That Wells Fargo Never Paid the judgment amount of $2000 in direct breach of that

agreement, thereby breaching and voiding the consent judgment and making it wholly

unenforceable by Wells.

29. That the foreclosed mortgage was part of a scheme concocted by World Savings to

pray in a predatory manner on the Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

30. After an original loan by World Bank, World Bank embarked on a scheme to create

loans that are 125% of the note, or $525,000.00 in this instance, with a market value of the

5|Page
Plaintiffs home being depressed by this scheme to the point that “the amount of the loan rose to

25 percent greater than the original value”, depressing the value of the Plaintiffs home and nearby

properties; harming the credit of the Plaintiff, and causing the Plaintiff great emotional distress

and strain.

31. Thereafter, defunct predecessor, World Savings Bank, a part of Golden West

Financial Corporation, was acquired in October 2006 which was acquired by Wells Fargo &

Company in 2008.

32. Prior to 2004, Plaintiff was called some days in excess of 4 times per day by

Defunct Predecessor World Bank to entice Plaintiff to refinance his home with this new, 125%

mortgage. He was told that the mortgage would be on the same terms as his existing mortgage

and allow him to draw additional money from the equity of his home.

33. That information was false, as the interest rate was higher, and the criminally

defunct lender did not disclose the other terms and impact of the loan, including the fact that it

would depress the market; harm the Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

34. The Plaintiff detrimentally and justifiably relied on the representations of the

defunct lender, World Bank which actually and proximately harmed the Plaintiff.

35. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at some point during these

transitions, the Plaintiffs mortgage was sold to an unknown third party, as part of a securitized

trust, for less than fair value; as the buyer knew that World Bank had created this fraudulent and

detrimental scheme and the buyer, therefore was not a bona fide purchaser for value. The

purchasers were unhappy with the terms of the mortgage, which permitted interest only payments

6|Page
for three years, far longer than other similar toxic loans, so they concocted a scheme to accelerate

the mortgage and take the Plaintiffs home.1

36. Plaintiff, from the beginning of the foreclosure action, Plaintiff contacted the

Defendant, seeking loss mitigation, loan modification and amicably attempting to save his home.

37. Defendant told Plaintiff if he signed the consent judgment, he would still receive

his modification, he would be able to save his home, and minimize the legal fees he would have

to incur.

38. Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff $2000.

39. Defendant made those false and material statements, knowing them to be false;

knowing that the Plaintiff would rely, and the Plaintiff did detrimentally and justifiably rely on

those statements.

40. Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant at that time had no intention of letting the

Plaintiff save his home, and had no intention of paying the promised money, $2000.

41. Plaintiff did not receive his loan modification promised by the Defendant because

the Defendant had no authority to enter into that agreement, as the loan had been sold to a trust

and it was the trust whose scheme was carried out through Defendant.

42. Furthermore, the loan modification that was offered did not aid the Plaintiff in any

way, even though that entered into a consent decree which obligated them to deal fairly with the

Plaintiff.

1
As recognized in the leading case of Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004,
124 So. 751, and succinctly stated in Althouse v. Kenney, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 270, 272, "A
court of equity may refuse to foreclose a mortgage when an acceleration of the due date of the
debt would be an inequitable or unjust result and the circumstances would render the acceleration
unconscionable." This is especially true where the lender has unclean hands which would forever
bar it from the equitable remedy of foreclosure.

7|Page
 43. Instead, they criminally attacked the Plaintiff by using forgery and recorded

fraudulent documents in the official records of Martin County, A FELONY, did not pay the sums

promised, did not keep him in the house, rejected the cash offers to save his home which were

more than the face of the note, and kicked him out of his home so they could list it for a profit,

therefore stealing his home and his equity therein, now marketing the house for $900,000.

44. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners were suffering the effects of undisclosed

negative amortization for their Pick-a-Payment loans, while the declining U.S. housing market was

sucking the remaining equity out of their homes.

45. The settlement was reached in December 2010 before U.S. District Judge Jeremy

Fogel in San Jose.

46. At the time, the San Francisco-based bank said it would provide at least $50 million

and as much as $600 million in modification benefits to troubled borrowers with the pay-option

loans.

47. Defendant Wells not only did not honor this deal when it failed to offer a proper

loan modification to the Plaintiff, but when they did not pay the $2000 and stole his home and is

now attempting to sell it, stealing his equity, they are in multiple breaches of their accords.

48. Instead Wells foreclosed fraudulently, making false promises in the official records

of the county, then foreclosed on them.

49. What’s worse, according to the Defendant, no payment has been made to any of the

true note holders, if any there be, according to the Defendant, for more than five years prior to the

Defendant filing for foreclosure, and since more than five years passed prior to suit, the

Defendant’s right to recover is forever barred by the Florida Statute of Limitations, § 95.11(2)(c),

Fla. Stat. (2010); Farmers & Merch. Bank v. Riede, 565 So. 2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

8|Page
 50. Foreclosure is an equitable remedy which is unavailable to any Plaintiff with

unclean hands, and Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., who convinced the Plaintiff to enter

a consent decree on the promise he could save his home and avoid further litigation expenses, as

alleged above, further committed the following wrongful acts, which include, but are not limited

to:

a. Dual Tracked a foreclosure while promising the Plaintiff to keep him in his home,

refusing to comply with the terms of its agreement with the government, and

refusing to even honor the judgment and payment of $2,000;

b. Committed acts of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud in violation of Florida

Statutes Annotated § 517.301; F.S.A. § 95.11(4)(e); F.S.A. § 95.11(4)(e) –

securities fraud;

c. Violations of the Consent Order issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency.

d. Benefitted from a fraudulent mortgage and foreclosure scheme in the name of the

Plaintiff, along with a MILLION OTHER CUSTOMERS, and this pattern of fraud

was only made public in September of 2016, and thus the statute of limitations

begins to run only after the discovery of the fraud by the Plaintiff when it was

publicized in the media and 5300 bank employees for Defendant Wells WERE

FIRED.

e. Furthermore, the violation of the consent decree was reduced to a judgment and the

Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating the finding of their contempt of the consent

decree.

9|Page
 f. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners were suffering the effects of undisclosed

negative amortization for their Pick-a-Payment loans, while the declining U.S.

housing market was sucking the remaining equity out of their homes.

g. The settlement was reached in December 2010 before U.S. District Judge Jeremy

Fogel in San Jose. At the time, the San Francisco-based bank said it would provide

at least $50 million and as much as $600 million in modification benefits to troubled

borrowers with the pay-option loans.

h. Defendant Wells not only did not honor this deal when it offered the inadequate

loan modification to the Plaintiff, but when the induced him into a consent

judgment, they knew they would not honor the same, dual tracked, and then are

currently attempting to steal the equity in his home, as the Plaintiff is informed,

believes, and thereon alleges that the property is currently being listed for $900,000,

substantially more than the judgment amount and more than the note, and more

than what they were obligated to take to save Plaintiff his home.

i. Wells forged the predecessor in interest’s name on the satisfaction of mortgages,

recorded their own forged documents in the official records of the county, then

foreclosed on them.

51. This fraud perpetrated upon the court is only one in a line of fraudulent acts committed by

the Defendant, which clearly shows it has unclean hands2, and is thus forever barred from

2
As recognized in the leading case of Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004,
124 So. 751, and succinctly stated in Althouse v. Kenney, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 270, 272, "A
court of equity may refuse to foreclose a mortgage when an acceleration of the due date of the
debt would be an inequitable or unjust result and the circumstances would render the acceleration
unconscionable." This is especially true where the lender has unclean hands which would forever
bar it from the equitable remedy of foreclosure.
10 | P a g e
 recovery.

52. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment setting aside and vacating the fraudulently obtained

judgment of foreclosure, as Defendant had no standing to sue, did not ever pay the $2,000,

never intended to pay the $2,000 and pursuant to Florida Statute 1.540(b), et seq., Plaintiff

is entitled to bring an independent action to prove intrinsic and extrinsic fraud was

perpetrated on the Plaintiff and the Court to obtain that judgment, and thus the Judgment

is void for the grounds set forth above.

53. The Defendant recorded that satisfaction of the only mortgage that was actually signed by

the Defendant and thus there is no mortgage securing the property, even though the

Defendant Wells, claiming to be the holder and owner of the forged note and mortgage,

foreclosed in the name of criminally defunct World Savings Bank, who took unfair

advantage of the Plaintiff in creating that mortgage.

54. On Nov. 19, 2007 Wachovia Corporation requests name change of World Savings Bank,

FSB to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.

55. On Oct.12, 2008 Wachovia Corporation (Holding Corporation of Wachovia Mortgage

FSB and Wachovia Bank N.A,) was acquired by Wells Fargo and Company (Holding

Company of Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)

56. Wachovia Mortgage FSB converted to Wells Fargo Bank Southwest N.A. Wells Fargo

Southwest N.A. merged into Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (This was requested by Wells Fargo

Bank N.A. and not Wells Fargo and Company, the holding Company of Wachovia

Mortgage FSB.)

57. As this court knows, World Savings was closed because of the precise behavior committed

against the Plaintiff, and the note and mortgages were fraudulent, predatory, forged and

11 | P a g e
 unenforceable.

58. Wells benefitted from the criminal conduct of World Savings and became an accessory

after the fact, by taking advantage of the fraudulent loans and is guilty of conspiracy and

committed perjury and suborning perjury when it filed suit and maintained the suit against

the Plaintiff.

59. That Wells recorded a satisfaction of the only real mortgage, there no longer exists any

lawful or good justification for enforcing the foreclosure judgment against the Plaintiff

that was clearly obtained by means of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, and is void ab initio.

60. Wells Fargo Bank, NA then compounded the problem by imposing additional fees, late

charges, imposed fees for forced placed insurance, inspection fees, and other fraudulent

charges against the Plaintiff’s account.

61. Plaintiffs performed all acts they were required to perform except those that they were

prohibited from performing or kept from performing by the Defendants and its purported

predecessors in interest.

62. WELLS filed suit against Plaintiff in 2010.

63. The action identified as Circuit Court of Marin, Florida Case Number 43-2010-CA-

002501, in its initial complaint, WELLS failed to claim it was the “successor in interest”

to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB who claimed it was the original holder and owner of the

original note and mortgage.

64. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB was never a party to any agreement, and the misnomer of

parties constitutes a defect in the judgment, and the Plaintiff in that action never had

standing to sue.

65. Thus, the judgment obtained in that case is void ab initio.

12 | P a g e
66. The Court of appeals regularly vacates those judgments now for want of proper standing,

and this Court should vacate that judgment on those grounds as well.

67. Moreover, they did not have the original note and mortgage, as those never existed, and

the note and mortgages sued upon (the second cause of action was recently dismissed)

were forgeries, the forgeries were destroyed, but in fact, they kept a copy so they could

claim that the copy was a copy of the original forgery.

68. The documents filed by Wells Fargo were filed at a time just before the hearing when the

Plaintiff had no opportunity to verify their veracity, and at that time, the forging of

documents were unknown and not believed by the court.

69. The fact is, that the mortgage documents used to foreclose and obtain a judgment were

fraudulently obtained, the consent decree was obtained by fraud, and the Defendant never

paid the $2,000, voiding the judgment.

70. The court and the Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations of

counsel for Wells that they had the original note and mortgage and that they would pay

the agreed upon sum of $2000 or that they would honor their promise to save the Plaintiff

his home, offer him loss mitigation and keep him in the property.

71. That the representation that they had the original note and mortgage were false, they did

not pay, nor did they ever intend to pay, the $2000 and they did not save the Plaintiff’s

home, instead stealing their equity, by now placing it on the market for $900,000.

72. That as an actual and proximate cause of the fraud, the Plaintiff was damaged in the sum

according to proof, but if a default occurs, in the sum of three million dollars for monetary

loss and emotional distress.

73. Furthermore, the practice of “robo-signing” was being regularly committed, but the public

13 | P a g e
 and the Plaintiff were unaware of that practice.

74. That the documents attached to this complaint, including the assignments, turn out to be

robo-signed, and the forged documents were then recorded in the official records of the

MARTIN County, and used by Defendant Wells to foreclose on the Plaintiff and steal

their home.

75. Plaintiff was prevented from raising any of these arguments as the Defendant, as part of

their scheme and artifice to defraud, waited until they filed for trial and claimed to be in

possession of documents that were authentic, when, in fact, the were in fact forgeries, and

avoided the challenge of the documents by settlement, which turns out to have been based

on false promises.

76. There was insufficient time to review the documents or verify them, and thus the Plaintiff

was surprised with forged documents and a fraudulently executed chain of assignments,

with each of the predecessors to the Plaintiff adding to the fraud, beginning with the

criminally defunct lender who victimized the Plaintiff to Wells Fargo, who has now been

found guilty of opening millions of fraudulent bank accounts, clearly to conceal the profits

from foreclosures such as this.

77. Finally, no valid contract exists between Plaintiffs and the Wells Fargo Bank, NA, and no

agreement ever existed between those parties, yet it was Wells Fargo Bank, NA that filed

suit for foreclosure against the Plaintiff.

78. As a result of the fact that Wells Fargo Bank, NA was never a lender, nor an interested

party, nor a holder of a valid note and mortgage between Plaintiff and the void World

Savings Mortgage, the suit was filed without standing and therefore the judgment obtained

in the foreclosure case, Martin County Case Number 43-2010-CA-002501 is void ab initio

14 | P a g e
 for want of standing of the Plaintiff as well as fraud perpetrated on the court and the

parties.

79. If that were not enough, Wells Fargo has just fired 5300 employees and paid its CEO 128

million dollars for falsifying accounts.

80. The Plaintiff is a victim of that fraud and identity theft, as this latest mortgage is a

fabricated mortgage and a fabricated account by Wells.

81. As a result of this Fraud, the Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, loss of title

to his home by means of fraud, and suffered monetary damages in excess of the sum of

three million dollars plus treble that amount for exemplary damages or an amount

according to proof.

82. Because the Defendant Wells committed this heinous act with the intent to cause financial

harm to the Plaintiff, and they actually and proximately caused financial harm to the

Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unlimited amounts in exemplary

damages.

83. The Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress over the past seven years as a result

of the fraud perpetrated by the Defendant Wells.

84. That since Wells felt one year salary to a CEO who committed that heinous act should be

paid $3 million dollars, the Plaintiff is entitled as exemplary damages seven years of that

same amount, or $9 million dollars in exemplary damages or an amount a jury of the

Plaintiff’s peers feels should be awarded against a bank that pays its CEO 125 million

dollars and fires 5300 people it hired to commit the criminal acts.

COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT

15 | P a g e
 85. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth

below.

86. The Consent Final Judgment (Exhibit 13) required the Defendant to pay the

Plaintiff $2,000.

87. Furthermore, Defendant agreed that they would provide the Plaintiff with loss

mitigation, keep him in his homestead home, modify his loan, and take steps to save the Plaintiffs

home.

88. WELLS materially breached the contract by:

a) Failing to pay the $2,000.

b) Refusing to accept the multiple loss mitigation attempts;

c) By refusing to accept the cash offers by the Plaintiff;

d) By evicting the Plaintiff and now marketing the home for $900,000, attempting to steal

the equity that the Plaintiff built into the property;

e) Accelerating the debt owed and instituting a foreclosure without providing sufficient

notice and opportunity to cure as required by the contract;

f) Instituting a foreclosure action based upon materially false statements; and

g) Generating false documents to foreclose on the Plaintiffs’ property.

89. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the breach of the contract.

WHEREFORE, DONALDA M. BYROM and RANDALL C. BYROM respectfully

demands judgment for damages, cost, fees and the return of the property and any other relief just

and proper.

COUNT II
CONSPRIACY TO DEFRAUD

16 | P a g e
 90. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 89 as if fully set forth

below.

91. WELLS entered into an agreement to commit civil conspiracy.

92. The civil conspiracy was to commit a lawful act by unlawful means.

93. WELLS committed overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy including:

a) Filing a foreclosure complaint against Plaintiffs with known false allegations with

the intent to take possession of their property through foreclosure;

b) Generating false documents in order to effectuate the foreclosure;

c) Making false statements in court regarding note ownership and standing.

94. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy

including the time and expense of protracted litigation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment for damages, cost, fees and any

other relief just and proper.

COUNT III
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
(Against WELLS)

95. Plaintiffs adopts and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 94 as if fully set forth

below.

96. The agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant includes the consent judgment

and the agreement to offer Plaintiff fair loss mitigation.

97. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that WELLS would not:

a) Accelerate the debt and file a foreclosure action without providing sufficient notice

and opportunity to cure;

17 | P a g e
 b) Make false statements as to WELLS ownership interest and standing to pursue the

foreclosure;

c) Generate false documents to pursue the foreclosure (forgery as felony).

d) Failure to offer Plaintiffs a modification as put forth by the Attorney Generals office;

e) Failure to provide fair loss mitigation;\

f) Theft of Plaintiffs equity in the property

98. WELLS breached that reasonable expectation by its actions and theft of the

Plaintiffs equity.

99. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

WHEREFORE, DONALDA M. BYROM and RANDALL C. BYROM respectfully

demands judgment for damages, this includes three times the amount of the mortgage, cost, fees

and any other relief just and proper.

COUNT IV
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE OF CONTRACT AND CONTEMPT OF CONSENT
DECREE

100. Plaintiffs adopts and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 99 as if fully set forth

below.

101. The agreement between the Plaintiff and Office of the Controller of the Currency

includes the consent judgment and the agreement that Defendant will offer Plaintiff fair

loss mitigation to the victims of the World Savings Fraud.

102. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that WELLS would not:

a) Accelerate the debt and file a foreclosure action without providing sufficient notice

and opportunity to cure;

18 | P a g e
 b) Make false statements as to WELLS ownership interest and standing to pursue the

foreclosure;

c) Generate false documents to pursue the foreclosure (forgery as felony).

d) Failure to offer Plaintiffs a modification as put forth by the Attorney Generals office;

e) Failure to provide fair loss mitigation;\

f) Theft of Plaintiffs equity in the property

103. WELLS breached that reasonable expectation by its actions and theft of the

Plaintiffs equity and refusing to offer a reasonable loss mitigation, and stealing the

Plaintiff’s home.

104. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

COUNT V
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND/OR QUIET TITLE
(Against WELLS)

105. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 104 as if fully set

forth below.

106. WELLS initiated a wrongful foreclosure against Plaintiffs.

107. The foreclosure resulted in a consent judgment on the premise that Wells

would not take the Plaintiff’s home; that it was a consent judgment to mitigate damages

for attorney’s fees; to pursue loss mitigation, not litigation; to save the Plaintiff’s

homestead home; to require Wells to pay $2,000 and .

108. Wells did not comply with any of their obligations, promises or even the

consent judgment;

109. The foreclosure caused financial harm to Plaintiffs.

19 | P a g e
 110. If Wells Fargo Bank, NA has sold the property to a third party bona fide purchaser

for value, then the court should award the Plaintiff the fair market value of the property,

$900,000 plus exemplary damages of treble that amount of 2.7 million dollars pursuant to

statute.

111. That if the property remains in the name of Wells Fargo Bank, NA as evidenced by

Exhibit 14, then in lieu of money damages, the court should vacate the certificate of title

issued to Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Exhibit 14, and grant quiet title in favor of the Plaintiff

in the property which is the subject of this action is and whose common address is 975

SE, St. Lucie Blvd, Stuart, FL 34996 and whose legal address is LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK

7, BAY ST. LUCIE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT

BOOK 6, PAGE 57, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH (NOW MARTIN)

COUNTY, FLORIDA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment for damages, three times the

amount of mortgage, the return of Plaintiffs property. cost, fees and any other relief just and proper.

COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

112. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set

forth below.

113. Commencing in 2010 and continuing to the present, WELLS engaged in various

deceptive and unfair trade practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade

Practices Act Chapter 501, Part II (501.2078), including by and through their predecessor, World

Savings, through their fraudulent Pick a Payment program.

114. The Courts have already found the program to be in direct violation of the Unfair

and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

20 | P a g e
 115. That Wells promised to pay $2000 in the consent judgment.

116. That Wells promised the Plaintiff to avoid loss of his home through loss mitigation.

117. That Wells committed multiple acts of fraud, including, but not limited to,

executing and recording false documents; signing documents on

118. That Wells did not perform in good faith, and

119. The deceptive and unfair acts and practices are to the injury and prejudice of

Plaintiffs and have resulted in damages thereto.

120. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment for damages, three million

in compensatory damages, nine million in exemplary damages, or amounts according to

proof; costs, vacate and annul Certificate of Title from wrongful foreclosure – CFN

2710047, BK 3009, PG 2337, interest and any other relief just and proper, and grant quiet

title in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank in the real property

which is the subject of this action is and whose common address is 975 SE, St. Lucie Blvd,

Stuart, FL 34996 and whose legal address is LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 7, BAY ST.

LUCIE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6,

PAGE 57, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH (NOW MARTIN)

COUNTY, FLORIDA. If Wells Fargo Bank, NA has sold the property to a third party

bona fide purchaser for value, then the court should award the Plaintiff the fair market

value of the property, $900,000 plus exemplary damages of treble that amount of 2.7

million dollars pursuant to statute.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all issues.

Respectfully submitted,

21 | P a g e
 VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and this was signed on

Date: ____________

__________________
RANDALL C. BYROM
3553 SW SUNSET TRACE CIRCLE,
PALM CITY, Florida, 34990.
TEL: 772-285-6263
EMAIL: JAIJETSBR@ATT.NET

22 | P a g e
BELOW IS THE PROCESS SERVER LETTER. CALL THE PROCESS SERVER AND GET
A QUOTE FOR SERVICE ON WELLS FARGO AT THAT ADDRESS. THERE ARE OTHER
PROCESS SERVERS IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE PRICE, THIS ONE WAS FIRST ON THE
LIST.

Excel Legal Courier

Minneapolis, MN

 Send Email
 (612) 781-5840

Preferred Legal Services, Inc.

St. Paul, MN

 Send Email
 (888) 447-0765

ABC Process Service, Inc.

Minneapolis, MN

 Send Email
 (800) 361-2611

Thomas Court Services

Minneapolis, MN

 Send Email
 (612) 260-7420

Midwest Legal Network, Inc.

St Louis Park, MN

 Send Email
 (952) 374-7702

Central Point Investigations

St. Paul, MN

 Send Email
 (651) 350-1832

Diligent Service Network

Minneapolis, MN

 Send Email
 (612) 254-6174

23 | P a g e
1 Statewide Process Servers in Minnesota
Pro Legal Support Services, Inc.
Bloomington, MN

 Send Email
 (612) 389-9910

24 | P a g e
 RANDALL C. BYROM
3553 SW SUNSET TRACE CIRCLE,
PALM CITY, Florida, 34990.
TEL: 772-285-6263
EMAIL: JAIJETSBR@ATT.NET

November __, 2018

Preferred Legal Services, Inc.

Contact: Tim Wolter
Phone: (888) 447-0765
Phone 2: (651) 647-0765
EMAIL: jaijetsbr@att.net Send Email
Fax: (651) 647-0628
Address:
4750 Highway 61 North
St. Paul, MN 55110
Website: http://www.preferredlegal.net

Re: DONALDA M. BYROM, RANDALL C. BYROM VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

Enclosed, please find a Summons, Complaint, and a copy; a check for your fees in the amount of
$__ for the defendant listed below:

Mr. James E. Hanson, C/O Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. S. Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN. 55479-
33131

If there are any errors in the pleadings, you have my express consent to correct the clerical error.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

____________________________________
RANDALL C. BYROM
3553 SW SUNSET TRACE CIRCLE,
PALM CITY, Florida, 34990.
TEL: 772-285-6263
EMAIL: JAIJETSBR@ATT.NET

25 | P a g e
 SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDING INFORMATION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

RANDALL C. BYROM. Case Number

Plaintiff,

-Vs- LIS PENDENS

WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

Defendants.
__________________________/

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S) AND ALL OTHERS WHOM IT MAY

CONCERN:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that suit was instituted by the above-named Plaintiff against
the above-named Defendant(s), in the above-styled cause, involving the following described
property, situated, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to-wit:

The property which is the subject of this action is and whose common address is 975 SE, St.
Lucie Blvd, Stuart, FL 34996 and whose legal address is LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 7, BAY ST.
LUCIE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 57,
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH (NOW MARTIN) COUNTY, FLORIDA.

Relief sought as to such property is for quiet title against the mortgages and fraudulent
assignments and judgments which are set forth and attached to the complaint, and recorded in the
Official Records:

Instrument Number 1483043, OR BK 01534, PG 1112

26 | P a g e
Mortgage deed between Robert M. Cutler, Joann M. Cutler, his wife and Randall C. Byrom and
Donalda M. Byrom, March 13th, 2003, recorded in the official records of this County, Instrument
Number 1643301, OR BK 01742 PG 1779, recorded on March 17th, 2003, Martin County,
Florida.

Subordination Agreement, recorded on August 12th, 2003 executed by Wachovia Bank, FKA
known as First Union National Bank.

Washington Mutual Bank, FA, recorded in the official records on August 12th, 2003, Instrument
Number 1682225, OR Book 01800, PG 2185.

Satisfaction of Mortgage, executed by Washington Mutual and recorded in the official records of
this County, Instrument Number 1688151, OR BK 01809 PG 1878, satisfying the Washington
Mutual Mortgage instrument recorded on February7 26th, 2001, Instrument No. 1483043, in
Book No. 01534 at Page No. 1112.

Satisfaction of Mortgage, Instrument Number 1924875, OR BK 02131 PG 2642, satisfying the

Mortgage Deed instrument recorded on March 13th, 2001, Instrument No. 1483043, in Book No.
01534 at Page No. 1112 (Exhibit 4).

World Savings Bank Pick a Payment mortgage, Instrument Number 1834175, OR BK 02007 PG
1445, recorded on April 27th, 2005.

Satisfaction of Mortgage, executed by two of the most notorious robo-signers in history, Bryan
Bly and Crystal Moore on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Instrument Number 1841764,
OR BK 02016, PG 2706, satisfying the mortgage of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, recorded in
the official records, Book 1800, Page 2185, or Doc 1682225.

Wachovia Bank, National Association, FKA First Union National Bank Instrument Number
1924875, OR BK 02131 PG 2642, satisfying the Mortgage Deed instrument recorded on March
13th, 2001, Instrument No. 1483043, in Book No. 01534 at Page No. 1112 (Exhibit 4).

Line of Credit Mortgage, Instrument Number 1922356, OR BK 02128, PG 0610.

Lis Pendens - CFN 2238098, Book2481, Page 662.

CFN 2446442, BOOK 2708, PAGE 2086.

Certificate of Title from wrongful foreclosure – CFN 2710047, BK 3009, PG 2337.

YOU will, therefore, please govern yourselves accordingly.

November __, 2018

____________________________________
RANDALL C. BYROM

27 | P a g e
3553 SW SUNSET TRACE CIRCLE,
PALM CITY, Florida, 34990.
TEL: 772-285-6263
EMAIL: JAIJETSBR@ATT.NET

FOR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY:

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ________

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____day of _____,

20___, by (name of person acknowledging).

(Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida)

(NOTARY SEAL)

(Name of Notary Typed, Printed, or Stamped)

Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification _______

Type of Identification Produced

28 | P a g e