IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
FLORIDA

S & A CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.,

a Florida corporation, Case no.

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. f/k/a

Chase Home Finance, a National Association
organized under the laws of Delaware; and
NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC.,
a Florida corporation,

Defendants.
_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW S & A Capital Partners, Inc., (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, and sues the Defendants, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Chase Home

Finance, (“Chase”) and Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., (“NTC”) as follows:

1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, and for equitable relief, over

which this Court has jurisdiction under Florida law.

2. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida, as this action centers around a

mortgage lien impairing a parcel of real property located in this county. The mortgage lien to which

reference is made is recorded in the official records of this county beginning at OR BK 26079, PG

1434. (Exhibit 1). The real property subject to the lien is legally described as follows:

Lot 4, Block 3, of North Ridge, according to the plat thereof, recorded in

Plat Book 51 at Page 72, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., is a Florida corporation which maintains its
principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. At all times material, Plaintiff purchased

distressed residential mortgage loans from Chase. As more fully described below, one such purchase

involved the loan memorialized in Exhibit 1. Plaintiff’s business model is innovative and designed

to be profitable while at the same time offering true relief to homeowners suffering from the constant

threat of foreclosure and incessant demands to meet monthly mortgage obligations far beyond their

financial ability to pay. Specifically, Plaintiff offers sustainable and reasonable payment plans to

homeowners which the homeowners are able to and generally do continue to fulfill over the long

term, bringing stability to both their personal lives and the neighborhoods in which they reside.

Laurence Schneider is the principal investor in Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., and owns two

other similar entities which invest in distressed mortgages: 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC and

Mortgage Resolution Servicing, LLC, (hereinafter “the Schneider entities.”)

4. Defendant Chase is a national banking association which at all times material

conducted business in this state and in this county. Its business relates primarily to the origination,

servicing, and securitization of residential mortgages. At all times since the execution and delivery

of the mortgage attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in order to maximize profits to the detriment of

common consumers, Chase has engaged in a pattern and practice of filing false, fraudulent, deceptive

and misleading instruments in the official records of innumerable jurisdictions across this state and

nation. Chase has accomplished this while minimizing its exposure by utilizing third parties to

actually create the documents and affix the signatures.

5. Chase has not, however, escaped all liability for its deceptive, indeed criminal,

operations, and has faced various legal actions seeking to hold it accountable, including but not

limited to the suit filed on March 12, 2012 by the United States of America and the attorneys general

2
of 49 states. Said action was lodged against the five largest servicers of residential mortgage loans,

including Chase. The complaint alleged that Chase and others regularly utilized “false and deceptive

affidavits and other documents,” resulting in “waste and abuse of taxpayer funds,” and “premature

and unauthorized foreclosures,” among other harms.

6. Chase ultimately entered into a settlement agreement known as the “National

Mortgage Settlement,” wherein, among many other obligations, Chase was required to confirm the

“Integrity of Documents;” that is, Chase was required to vigilantly verify that the statements

contained in all such documents are [a] based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge; [b] signed by

hand of affiant (with certain exceptions for electronic filings) and [c] factually accurate and

substantiated. Chase was also required to provide relief to homeowners in various forms, primary

among which was first -lien principal forgiveness.

7. Chase and the other servicers subject to the National Mortgage Settlement claim to

have fulfilled all of their obligations thereunder, as reflected in the news article, from March 18,

2014, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

8. Plaintiff, along with the Schneider entities, had a course of dealing with Chase

involving the purchase of thousands of mortgages between 2005 and 2009. Thereafter, upon

entering into various consent orders and settlements with government regulators, Chase began a

retaliatory and utterly dishonest lien-release project against the Plaintiffs and Laurence Schneider.

This lien-release project was in retaliation for Schneider’s whistleblower lawsuit (Exhibit 3) in the

United States District Court for South Carolina (subsequently transferred to the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia as a case related to the National Mortgage Settlement) alleging

that Chase did not follow its obligations pursuant to the (1) Home Affordable Modification Program

3
(HAMP) (Exhibit 4); (2) Servicer Participation Agreement (SPA) with the Department of the

Treasury (Exhibit 5); (3) Consent Orders with the OCC (Exhibit 6), and the Federal Reserve (Exhibit

7), and the (4) National Mortgage Settlement, (hereinafter “the NMS”).

9. As part of this retaliation for filing the whistleblower action, Defendants filed scores

of lien releases on mortgages owned by the Schneider entities, including Plaintiff, which they had

purchased from Chase. The “Release of Lien,” (Exhibit 8), and "Vacation and Rescission of

Modification of Mortgage," (Exhibit 9), are the fraudulent filings at directly at issue in this case and

are more fully described below. Exhibits 8 and 9 are a small sample of the extensive array of

fraudulently robo-signed documents created and recorded by Defendants to punish the Plaintiff,

Schneider, and the Schneider entities. Additional examples of the Defendants’ fraudulent and

retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff, Schneider, and the Schneider entities, in the form of numerous

other robo-signed documents adversely affecting the legitimate, vested interests of Plaintiff,

Schneider, and the Schneider entities, are attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

10. Defendant NTC is a corporate entity which, as its name reflects, markets itself

as an expert in “Clearing Titles.” It, like the infamous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc., is a third party utilized by Chase and other servicers to create and record documents which

purport to affect ownership interests in real property and mortgage liens, on behalf of innumerable

corporate entities, using “signing officers,” more commonly known as “robo-signers.” Despite the

fact that such practices, wherein the persons signing documents of legal significance, such as

assignments of mortgage and releases of liens, have no knowledge of the transactions these

instruments purportedly reflect, and have no real authority to bind the entities for which they claim

to be vice president or other high-ranking officer, led to the National Mortgage Settlement, NTC

4
continues to engage in such practices through the present time. NTC has faced its own share of

enforcement actions, brought by attorneys general and other government agencies tasked with

protecting the integrity of official records and the rights of ordinary consumers. One such action was

brought against NTC by The People of the State of Illinois with the filing of the Complaint for

Injunctive and Other Relief attached hereto, along with the resulting Consent Judgment, as Exhibit

11.

11. As Exhibit 11 makes clear, NTC employs dozens of persons whose sole

responsibility is to act as “signers,” which means they sign various instruments, such as assignments

of mortgage and releases of liens, as “vice president” of big financial institutions, including Chase.

As further explained in Exhibit 11, these persons have absolutely no knowledge of the documents

they sign, and are not “vice presidents” of Chase or any other company as that term is commonly

understood.

12. As referenced above, Plaintiff purchased the mortgage in question, which is

attached hereto as Exhibit 1, from Chase. Said purchase is reflected in the Assignment of Mortgage

dated February 16, 2010 and attached hereto as Exhibit 12.

13. In the later months of 2013, Chase was fully invested in its objective of

“satisfying” its obligations under the NMS, while actually offering the least possible relief to those

persons adversely affected by its criminal conduct and who were intended, at least by the authorities,

to receive the benefit of the Settlement. Pursuant to the NMS, a complex system of credits was

created which encouraged Chase, MERS, and NTC to engage in wholesale robo-signing in order to

satisfy their consumer relief obligations as expeditiously as possible. Exhibit D to the NMS outlines

the percentages and computations of consumer relief credits that Chase and the other large servicers

5
used to obtain credit against the substantial penalties imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

As reflected in the article attached hereto as Exhibit 2, by March of 2014, Chase had convinced the

authorities that it was in compliance with its obligations, especially in regard to its alleged

forgiveness of first-lien mortgages.

14. In many instances, Chase acted in ways carefully designed to deceive the authorities

charged with insuring compliance with servicer obligations pursuant to the NMS into believing it

was fulfilling, or had fulfilled, its obligations thereunder. Among these activities was the filing of

instruments in the official records purporting to release mortgage liens, which would naturally appear

to constitute principal “forgiveness.” In a false and deceptive act which resulted in damage to the

Plaintiff, Chase, with the collusion and participation of NTC, on December 11, 2013 filed in the

official records of Miami-Dade County the Release of Lien attached hereto as Exhibit 8, (hereinafter

“the Release” or “Exhibit 8”). This instrument contains numerous false, fraudulent, deceptive and

misleading statements, including but not limited to: (1) Chase owns the mortgage comprising the lien

(Exhibit 1); (2) Chase is the “holder” of said mortgage; (3) Chase has the authority to “authorize[]

the Recorder to discharge the same”; (4) Deandrea Chapman is “VICE PRESIDENT” of Chase; (5)

the instrument was executed by authority of Chase’s board of directors; and (6) Chapman

“acknowledged the instrument to be the free act and deed of [Chase].” Clearly, based upon Exhibit

12, even if Chapman was actually “VICE PRESIDENT” of Chase, and had knowledge of the

contents of the Release, such act would be totally ineffective to release the lien, as said lien was

vested with Plaintiff by operation of Exhibit 12. On its face, should it not be declared null and void

by this Court, the effect of the filing by Chase and NTC of the fraudulent Release in the official

records is to deprive Plaintiff of the benefit for which it bargained when purchasing the loan from

6
Chase: an enforceable right to receive payments toward the debt secured by the mortgage lien.

Further demonstrating the illegitimacy of Defendants’ conduct is the fact that Chapman is no “VICE

PRESIDENT.” Chapman’s LinkedIn profile indicates that she is merely a “Senior Operations

Specialist.” (Exhibit 13).

15. The fact that Chase continues with its pattern and practice of utilizing imposters as

officers in executing important legal documents is emphasized in a recent interaction between Chase

and Schneider entity Mortgage Resolution Servicing, LLC, wherein Chase tacitly admitted that a

real vice president did not sign an assignment from Chase to Mortgage Resolution Servicing, LLC.

(Exhibit 14). This shows that the robo-signing and retaliation by Chase against the Schneider entities

continues unabated.

16. In yet another deceptive and misleading filing, on May 21, 2014 Chase and NTC

filed in the official records of Miami-Dade County the “Vacation and Rescission of Modification

of Mortgage” attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9, just like Exhibit 8, is robo-signed by a person,

in this instance Ingrid Whitty, who is not in any known meaning of the term “VICE PRESIDENT”

of Chase. Oddly, Exhibit 9 describes Exhibit 8 as a “Home Affordable Modification” of the subject

mortgage, which it simply is not.

17. These irregularities are standard practice for NTC. NTC describes itself in

promotional materials as the “Largest Lien Release Vendor in the Mortgage Industry.” NTC is

notorious for employing robo-signers, such as Erika Lance , “Chief Information Officer,” and Brian

Bly, “Signer.” These persons have admitted under oath in depositions that they have no knowledge

of the documents they sign/which bear their alleged signatures, and that in many, many instances the

notaries do not even witness the signing of the documents. (B. Bly depo attached hereto as Exhibit

7
15; E. Lance depo attached hereto as Exhibit 16). It strains credulity to suggest that the

mischaracterization of the Release as some kind of HAMP loan modification is the result of

confusion, inadvertence, or innocent mistake. The claim that the Release is a Home Affordable

Modification is yet another intentional misrepresentation which clouds title to the property, and

leaves interested persons and entities, including the Plaintiff, in doubt as to their rights and

obligations in relation to the mortgage lien.

18 The preparation of Exhibits 8 and 9 by NTC, Ingrid Whitty, and Erika Lance

constitutes the unlicensed practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Irizarry, 268 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1972);

The Florida Bar v. Hughes, 697 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1997); The Florida Bar v. Lister, 662 So. 2d 1241

(Fla. 1995); The Florida Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1985).

19. In order for Chase or NTC to assert that a borrower executed a "Home Affordable

Modification," Chase and NTC were required by (1) HAMP (Exhibit 4); (2) the Servicer

Participation Agreement (SPA) with the Department of the Treasury (Exhibit 5) ; (3) Consent Orders

with the OCC (Exhibit 6), and the Federal Reserve (Exhibit 7), and (4) the NMS to allow borrowers

to make an application pursuant to HAMP. Rather than follow the rules, Chase did an end-run

around the application process by stating a borrower benefitted from HAMP, and then obtaining

credits for the liens by releasing them. In many cases borrowers – such as the borrower at the instant

property -- never knew that their mortgage had been released, as evidenced by the fact that they still

continue to pay the Plaintiff.

20. There is no evidence that the borrower for the instant property ever completed the

HAMP process. To properly assert that a borrower sought a home loan modification, an Initial

Package must be completed by the borrower to include: (i) a Request for Modification Assistance

8
("RMA") Form; (ii) either (i) IRS Form 4506-T or 4506T-EZ or a signed copy of the borrower's tax

return for the most recent tax year;(iii) evidence of income; and (iv) a Dodd-Frank Certification.

Chase could require use of the RMA by all borrowers requesting consideration for HAMP or may

use other proprietary financial information forms that are substantially similar in content to the

RMA. Included in the RMA was a Hardship Affidavit. Every borrower seeking a modification,

regardless of delinquency status, is required to sign a Hardship Affidavit that attests that the

borrower is unable to continue making full mortgage payments and describes the type of hardship

from which he or she is suffering.

21. Servicers, such as Chase, were required to use HAMP as the first loss mitigation

option for each borrower. Chase was required to have written standards for determining imminent

defaults that are consistent with applicable contractual agreements and accounting standards and to

apply such standards equally to all borrowers. The mortgage file and/or servicing system had to

contain evidence of this determination. The Making Home Affordable Program Handbook states

that all Servicers with SPA's must follow the steps outlined in the Documentation Section delineated

in Section 2 in order to obtain Home Loan Modifications for eligible borrowers. As detailed in

Section 2.2.4, Chase must retain "All documents and information received during the process of

determining borrower eligibility, including evidence of application of each modification step." This

clearly did not occur, because Chase never asked borrower if she wanted a Home Loan Modification;

it merely released the lien, and never informed the borrower that the debt had been discharged, as

required by Section 2 of the MHA Handbook, which requires, "For charged off mortgage loans not

considered for HAMP, evidence that the servicer has released the borrower from liability for the debt

and provided a copy of the release to the borrower. Chase's SPA with Treasury, signed on July 31,

9
2009 by Michael Zarro, which is in effect Chase's contract to participate in the HAMP, clearly states

in Section 2(A) that Chase "shall perform the Services for all mortgage loans its services, whether

it services such mortgage loans for its own account or for the account of another party, including any

holders of mortgage-backed securities.”

22. Additionally, Section 4(E) of Chase's SPA with the Treasury states specifically that

Chase "shall maintain complete and accurate records of, and supporting documentation for, the

borrower payment, including, but not limited to, PITIA (principal, interest, taxes, insurance

(including homeowner's insurance and hazard and flood insurance) and homeowner's association

and/or condo fees), and delinquency information.” These are common servicing requirements.

23. Chase's Consent Order with the OCC in 2011, (Exhibit 6), states in Article III(3)(e)

that Chase must have "governance and controls to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and

state laws (including the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

("SCRA")), rules, regulations, and court orders and requirements, as well as the Membership Rules

of MERSCORP, servicing guides of the Government Sponsored Enterprises ("GSEs") or investors,

including those with the Federal Housing Administration and those required by HAMP, and loss

share agreements with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively "Legal

Requirements"), and the requirements of this Order." Chase's Consent Order with the Federal

Reserve Board in 2011, (Exhibit 7), states in Section 3(vi) that Chase's "Loss Mitigation Activities

(comment: i.e. Recovery Department) with respect to foreclosed loans were handled in accordance

with the requirements of HAMP, if applicable, and consistent with the policies and procedures

applicable to the Mortgage Servicing Companies' proprietary loan modifications or other Loss

Mitigation programs, such that each borrower had an adequate opportunity to apply for a Loss

10
Mitigation option or program, any such application was handled appropriately, and a final decision

was made on a reasoned basis and was communicated to the borrower before the foreclosure sale.

. ."

24. Chase has admitted that it lien-released the loans for which it obtained credit;

however these individual borrowers were never provided the ability to participate in HAMP. And,

as stated above, in many cases like Patricia King’s (Exhibit 17), the borrower's debt was never

forgiven. Rather the mortgages were merely lien-released, even though such mortgages had already

been sold to another entity, were in a Residential Mortgage Backed Security, or had been sent to

collection agencies in order to continue receiving payment, as evidenced by an exchange between

a Chase contact and Laurence Schneider.

25. On June 27, 2013, Schneider received a text message from a Chase contact, (Exhibit

18) which included a breakdown of Recovery 1st Lien Mortgage loans, coded for a lien release in

the RCV1 hidden systems of record. According to the communication:

a) 3,768 1st Lien Mortgage Loans were coded with the acronym "AFPWHS" which

identified the federally related mortgage loans as Alternative Foreclosure Process – Warehouse,

which means they were queued for a lien release;

b) 524 1st Lien Mortgage Loans were coded with the acronym "AFPRTR" which

identified the federally related mortgage loans as Alternative Foreclosure Process – Real Time

Resolutions, which means they were queued for a lien release on loans in which Real Time

Resolutions, a collection agency which was not licensed to service mortgage loans, was actively

collecting on the debt;

c) "No way to tell how many 1st serviced loans are out there;"

11
 d) "There's about 30k serviced with agency;" and

e) "125k owned with agency."

Attached to the text message link is a schedule of loans labeled "Chase Home Loan Servicing and

Default: Daily Agency Recovery Summary,” which reconfirms the information provided in the Chase

communication.

26. The Complaint filed by the United States which led to the NMS stated in paragraph

53 that Chase was required to follow all HUD and FHA Fair Housing Laws to ensure that borrowers

were not foreclosed upon before being able to make a HAMP application. In paragraph 54, Chase

committed to making an effort to engage in HAMP modifications in exchange for compensation

(which later became credits because of the NMS and RMBS Settlements). This was clearly not done

then, and, Plaintiff, argues, is still is not being done, thereby causing significant community blight

in the hardest hit places such as Baltimore, Detroit, or even Liberty City as outlined in the complaint

in City of Miami v. Chase. et al. (Exhibit 19). The complaint details in the highlighted portions why

Chase was required to enter into the NMS in the first place, and notes that Chase is still engaging in

many of the same behaviors.

Count 1 - Declaratory Judgment - Fla. Stat. §86.011 et seq.

27. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-26 here.

28. Plaintiff seeks a declaration, in the form of a final judgment, that the instruments

recorded in the official records of this county and attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 9 are null and void

and of no legal effect whatsoever.

29. Plaintiff is entitled to such relief regardless of the availability of an adequate remedy

at law.

12
 30. As the result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the

undersigned attorney and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs,

including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §86.081.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment from the Court rendering the subject

instruments null and void and without legal effect, an award of costs and attorney’s fees, and such

additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 2 - Violations of Fla. Stat. §817.535 - Injunctive Relief and Damages

31. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-26 here.

32. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817.535(8)(a), any person adversely affected by an instrument

filed in an official record which contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, has a

civil right of action for damages. Plaintiff has been adversely affected by the recording of Exhibits

8 ad 9, in that such filings have impaired and reduced its ability to sell the subject mortgage, and they

have reduced the price it will be able to obtain for said mortgage in the event it can be sold.

33. Exhibits 8 and 9, as detailed in paragraphs 9 and 10, above, contain materially

false, fictitious and fraudulent statements.

34. Pursuant to §817.535(8)(b)(1), upon a finding that an instrument contains one or

more false, fraudulent, or fictitious statements such that it does not establish a legitimate property

interest, the court shall determine whether the instrument is void ab initio. If so, the Court may order

the instrument sealed and removed from the electronic database comprising the official records. The

Court may also enter an injunction against the defendant which filed the instrument and/or directed

another to file the instrument, prohibiting the defendants from filing or directing another to file an

instrument in the official records without the prior approval of a circuit or county judge.

13
 35. Pursuant to §817.535(8)(b)(2), upon a finding of intent to defraud or harass, the court

or jury shall award actual damages and punitive damages, subject to the criterial in Fla. Stat. §768.72,

to the person adversely affected by the instrument, as well as a civil penalty of $2500.00 for each such

instrument.

36. As the result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the

undersigned attorney and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Pursuant to §817.535(8)[c], the court shall

award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., demands judgment against Defendants,

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Chase Home Finance and Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., jointly

and severally, for monetary damages exceeding $15,000.00, along with punitive damages, costs, and

attorney’s fees, as well as for an injunction pursuant to §817.535(8)(b)(1) preventing Defendants from

recording any instruments or documents in the official records of Miami-Dade County unless it

obtains prior court approval for each instrument or document it or they wish to record.

Count 3 - Slander of Title

37. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-26 here.

38. The Defendants’ wrongful conduct as alleged in paragraphs 1-26 constitutes slander

or disparagement of title by representing that Plaintiff’s lien has been released (Exhibit 8) and then

by filing the fraudulent and deceptive document, “Vacation and Rescission of Modification of

Mortgage,” attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Such actions were done with actual malice.

39. Plaintiff has been damaged by the execution and recording of Exhibits 8 and 9 in that

such filings have impaired and reduced its ability to sell the subject mortgage, and they have reduced

the price it will be able to obtain for said mortgage in the event it can be sold.

14
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., demands judgment against Defendants,

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Chase Home Finance and Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., jointly

and severally, for monetary damages exceeding $15,000.00, along with punitive damages, costs, and

attorney’s fees.

Count 4 - Tortious Interference With Business Relations

40. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-26 here.

41. Plaintiff purchased the mortgage in question (Exhibit 1) from Chase. (See Exhibit

12).

42. On November 20, 2013, Defendants prepared the Release, (Exhibit 8), and caused it

to be executed and recorded. Said document was fraudulently robo-signed, and was of the type likely

to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business relationship with the borrower, whereby payments are to be

made as secured by the mortgage lien.

43. On May 9, 2014, Defendants executed a “Vacation and Rescission of Modification

of Mortgage.” (Exhibit 9). Said document was fraudulently robo-signed and was of the type likely

to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business relationship with the borrower, whereby payments are to be

made as secured by the mortgage lien.

44. Plaintiff has serviced the mortgage in good faith and has engaged the borrower such

that borrower is continuing to make payments to the Plaintiff. Should the borrower learn of

Defendants’ actions, in executing and recording Exhibits 8 and 9 borrower is likely to stop making

payments.

45. Plaintiff has been damaged by the execution and filing of Exhibits 8 and 9 in that

such filings have impaired and reduced its ability to sell the subject mortgage, and they have reduced

15
the price it will be able to obtain for said mortgage in the event it can be sold.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., demands judgment against Defendants,

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Chase Home Finance and Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., jointly

and severally, for monetary damages exceeding $15,000.00, along with punitive damages, costs, and

attorney’s fees.

Count 5 - Promissory Estoppel

46. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-26 here.

47. Defendants are estopped from asserting that the Release (Exhibit 8) and the

"Vacation of Modification of Mortgage," (Exhibit 9) are valid, effective, enforceable or authentic,

as Plaintiff was assigned the mortgage, and mortgage lien, on February 16, 2010. (Exhibit 12)

48. Defendants are estopped from filing documents having effect on the property, as the

Plaintiff detrimentally relied on promises made by Chase that the property belonged to Plaintiff.

49. At all times material, Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff

reasonably believed that it had a security interest in the subject property arising from the mortgage

lien.

50. Defendants are estopped from asserting any right to the mortgage or mortgage lien,

and Chase must be held to the promise effectuated by the execution and recording of the Assignment.

(Exhibit 12).

51. The execution of Exhibits 8 and 9, and the filing of same in the official records of

this county, breached Chase’s promise to the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result,

in that such filings have impaired and reduced its ability to sell the subject mortgage, and they have

reduced the price it will be able to obtain for said mortgage in the event it can be sold.

16
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, S & A Capital Partners, Inc., demands judgment against Defendants,

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Chase Home Finance and Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., jointly

and severally, for monetary damages exceeding $15,000.00, along with punitive damages, costs, and

attorney’s fees.

Respectfully submitted this _______ day of August, 2016.

KENNETH ERIC TRENT

Attorney for Plaintiff
831 East Oakland Park Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
(954)567-5877; (954)567-5872 [fax]
Trentlawoffice@yahoo.com

By: /s/ Kenneth Eric Trent

Fla. Bar No. 693601

17