Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

0001

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

2

 

CASE NO. 53-2007-CA-007222-0000-WH

3

4

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6

vs.

7

HENRY REDILLO A/K/A HENRY REDILLO, SR.,

8

 

Defendant(s).

9

/

10

11

12

DEPOSITION OF BRIAN WHITE PAGE 1 - 61

13

 

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

14

2:51 p.m. - 4:03 p.m.

15

Esquire Deposition Solutions 4927 Southfork Drive

16

Lakeland, Florida 33813

17

18

---------------------------------------------

19

20

21

22

REPORTED BY:

Evelyn M. Adrean, RPR, FPR

23

Notary Public State of Florida at Large

24

Esquire Deposition Services - Tampa, Florida 813-221-2535 (800-838-2814)

25

Job No.:

228291

0002

1

APPEARANCES:

2

 

RIA SANKAR BALRAM, ESQUIRE

3

Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. 1800 NW 49th Street, Suite 120

4

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

954-453-0365

5

 

Attorney for NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

6

7

8

MICHAEL ALEX WASYLIK, ESQUIRE Ricardo, Wasylik & Kamuk PL

9

Post Office Box 2245 Dade City, Florida 33526

10

352-567-3173

11

Attorney for HENRY REDILLO A/K/A HENRY REDILLO, SR.

12

13

14

15

16

ALSO PRESENT:

17

Henry Redillo, Defendant

18

19

Page 1

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

20

21

22

23

24

25

0003

1

I

N D

E X

2

DEPOSITION OF BRIAN WHITE

 

PAGE

3

Direct Examination by Mr. Wasylik

 

4

4

Cross-Examination by Ms. Balram

 

50

5

Redirect Examination by Mr. Wasylik

 

51

6

Certificate of Reporter

 

57

7

Deposition Errata Sheet

58

8

Certificate of Oath

 

61

9

10

11

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS

 

12

NO.

DESCRIPTION

PAGE

13

1

Affidavit of Lost Original Document

47

14

2

66-Page Collection History

 

55

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

0004

1

The deposition of BRIAN WHITE was taken pursuant

2

to Notice by counsel for the Defendant on Tuesday, June

3

14, 2011, commencing at 2:51 p.m. at Esquire Deposition

4

Solutions, 4927 Southfork Drive, Lakeland, Florida

5

33813. Said deposition was reported by Evelyn M.

6

Adrean, RPR, FPR, Notary Public, State of Florida at

7

Large.

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

THEREUPON:

10

THE REPORTER: Raise your right hand, please.

11

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you

12

give today will be the truth, the whole truth and

13

nothing but the truth?

14

THE WITNESS: Yes.

15

BRIAN WHITE,

16

a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the

17

whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and

18

testified as follows:

 

19

DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

20

BY MR. WASYLIK:

21

Q

Good afternoon. We've briefly been introduced

22

a moment ago.

My name again is Mike Wasylik.

I am the

23

attorney for the defendant, Henry Redillo who is present

24

here with me, and you here with your counsel.

We are

25

here today pursuant to a notice of rescheduled

0005

1 deposition, the scheduling coordinated with your

2 lawyers.

3 presence of a corporate representative for Nationstar

4 Mortgage with the certain designated areas of knowledge

You are here -- or we have requested the

Page 2

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

5

with respect to this case.

And you are here pursuant to

6

that notice, I take it?

7

A

Yes.

8

Q

Can you please state your full name for the

9

record.

10

A

Brian White.

11

Q

And Mr. White, what is your employment?

12

A

What's my function?

13

Q

What is -- yes.

14

A

Or who do I work for?

15

Q

We'll start with what is your function.

16

A

I'm a default litigation -- default

17

litigation.

 

18

Q

And is that your title?

19

A

Yes.

20

Q

And with who are you employed?

21

A

Nationstar Mortgage.

22

Q

And as a -- in the course of your duties in

23

default litigation, what is your relationship to this

24

particular file?

 

25

A

We own the file, we own the note.

0006

1

Q

By "we," Nationstar?

2

A

Nationstar owns it.

3

Q

Now, the deposition here today is unlike a

4

deposition where I'd be taking the personal testimony of

5

a particular witness. We've noticed a corporate

6

representative to that, and we've asked that you be the

7

witness with areas of knowledge that we've designated in

8

our notice. We are actually taking the deposition of

9

the corporate plaintiff in this case, and you are the

10

physical flesh and blood embodiment of that person. As

11

such, when I asks questions, I'm not necessarily for

12

questions that are related to your personal knowledge

13

although we do expect that you have done the preparation

14

necessary to be able to answer the question.

I am

15

asking for the knowledge and position of the corporate

16

plaintiff.

Generally speaking when I ask you

17

a question, I am going to be asking for the position,

18

knowledge, information of the plaintiff, that being

19

Nationstar. Do you understand that?

20

A

Yes.

If I'm able to answer, then I will

21

answer and do so.

22

Q

And with respect to any question that I ask

23

you, if it's unclear whether I'm asking more the

24

knowledge of the plaintiff or your individual knowledge,

25

if it's a big issue at all to you, please let me know, I

0007

1

will clarify.

 

2

A

Okay.

3

Q

And to that extent, if there's any question I

4

ask you that's at all unclear or ambiguous, please let

5

me know, I will clarify.

6

A

Okay.

7

Q

Okay?

And I don't know if you've had your

8

deposition taken before, we'll get into that in a

9

moment.

But today I'm going to ask you a series of

10

questions about the case, and you will answer hopefully

11

to the best of your ability.

And, you know, if at any

12

time you need a break to talk to your lawyer, for

13

personal comfort, for whatever reason, go ahead and let

14

me know.

This is not a water boarding session, we're

15

just here to get information about the case.

Page 3

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

16

A

That's fine.

17

Q

Okay?

All right.

Do you have any other

18

questions about what we're going to undergo today?

19

A

No.

20

Q

All right. What is your specific connection

21

to this mortgage loan that is the subject of this

22

litigation?

23

A

Can you clarify that?

24

Q

Yes. Other than today's deposition, do you

25

have any role in overseeing the mortgage loan that is

0008

1

the subject of this litigation?

2

A

In a function -- clarify further, please.

3

Q

Any role at all.

 

4

MS. BALRAM: Objection to the form of

5

question. If you ask a specific question, he'd be

6

able to give you a specific answer.

It's kind of

7

vague.

8

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

9

Q

Well, let's start with the day-to-day

10

function. What is your day-to-day involvement with this

11

loan?

12

A

Again, clarify the question.

13

Q

Let's go back.

Let's go back and talk about

14

your duties as in default litigation. What specifically

15

are your duties?

 

16

A

Specifically, my duties entail that I attend

17

at trial, I attend at depositions, I review the note,

18

review the mortgage, review the figures, review --

19

review the account in and of itself.

20

Q

Prior to receiving today's -- the notice of

21

deposition for this deposition, had you done any review

22

of this particular file?

 

23

A

Yes.

24

Q

And when was that?

 

25

A

When did you -- when did you send us notice or

0009

1

on this?

2

Q

The original notice was approximately two

3

months ago.

It was April?

 

4

MS. BALRAM:

No.

The notice that went out was

5

on, I believe, the 9th of April.

When I requested

6

Brian to attend the deposition, is what --

7

THE WITNESS:

It was in April or --

8

MS. BALRAM:

No.

Sorry, June.

9

THE WITNESS:

June, okay.

So we -- let's see.

10

This was early June some time.

11

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

12

Q

Okay.

Prior to that, did you have any

13

involvement with this specific loan file at all?

14

A

No.

15

Q

Okay.

Now, I see that you have a copy of the

16

notice in front of you; is that correct?

17

A

Uh-huh.

18

Q

All right. The areas of knowledge that we've

19

requested are set forth in that notice.

No. 1 asks for

20

a person of knowledge of the facts asserted in the

21

pleadings. Are you the person for Nationstar who'd have

22

the best knowledge of the facts asserted in the

23

pleadings?

24

A

At this very moment, yes.

25

Q

Can you tell me what preparation you have done

0010

Page 4

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

1

to answer questions related to the facts asserted in the

2

pleadings?

3

A

I the pulled note, I pulled the mortgage, I

4

pulled what documents are available to me, I have

5

reviewed account histories, reviewed paid histories,

6

went through the account in general.

7

Q

Did you review the complaint?

8

A

Yes, I did.

9

Q

Did you review any answer to the complaint?

10

A

Not aware that I did.

11

Q

Did you review any other court paper with

12

respect to No. 1?

 

13

A

More specifically?

14

Q

Okay.

Did you -- besides the complaint, did

15

you review any of the other pleadings that have been

16

filed in this case?

 

17

A

More specifically what?

18

Q

Well, I've asked you as to the answer, and you

19

said you don't remember. Okay. Have you reviewed any

20

amended answer?

 

21

THE WITNESS: Ria?

22

MS. BALRAM: I'm sorry?

23

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

24

Q

Did you --

25

A

I've told you what that I've reviewed.

If

0011

1

it's regarding an answer, to my knowledge I've not

2

reviewed an answer. I am familiar with the complaint,

3

I'm familiar with the outline of the status of the

4

account.

5

Q

Okay. With respect to area of knowledge

6

number 2, we've asked for a person with knowledge of the

7

facts asserted in any affidavit submitted by the

8

plaintiff. How did you prepare for today to answer

9

questions about that area of knowledge?

10

A

Again --

11

MS. BALRAM:

Object to the form. Specific

12

questions, please.

13

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

14

Q

Did you review any documents, specifically

15

affidavits, with respect to -- I'm sorry, let me

16

withdraw that. In order to prepare to answer questions

17

about the facts asserted in affidavits submitted by the

18

plaintiff, did you actually review any affidavits?

19

A

Affidavits, no. I didn't have interrogatories

20

to review.

21

Q

I didn't ask you about interrogatories, I

22

asked you about affidavits.

23

A

Right. Typically prior to depositions, I

24

actually have something to review provided to my counsel

25

with regard to what opposing counsel is prepared to ask

0012

1

other than five points represented within the notice of

2

deposition. I wasn't allotted very much to prepare for.

3

Q

I see.

So when you received this notice of

4

deposition and you saw that we were asking for a person

5

who had knowledge of facts asserted in affidavits

6

submitted by the plaintiff, which is Nationstar, did you

7

determine that any investigation was necessary as to

8

what facts were asserted in those affidavits?

9

MS. BALRAM:

Objection: Form. Please be

10

specific.

 

11

MR. WASYLIK: All right. Let me be perfectly

Page 5

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

12

clear.

13

THE WITNESS: Yes.

14

MS. BALRAM: Please.

15

THE WITNESS: Please.

16

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

17

Q

When I ask for a witness who has knowledge of

18

facts asserted in the affidavit, normally the people who

19

are responding to that have actually reviewed the

20

affidavits that the plaintiff has submitted to the

21

Court. And what you're telling me is, that hasn't

22

happened in this case.

23

MS. BALRAM: The affidavits that were

24

submitted in this case, there were only three

25

affidavits that have been submitted by plaintiff in

0013

1

this case.

Brian is able to testify as to the

2

contents of the affidavits of indebtedness which was

3

prepared according to their business records;

4

correct?

 

5

THE WITNESS: Correct.

6

MS. BALRAM: The other two affidavits that

7

were submitted were an affidavit of costs which was

8

prepared by plaintiff based on costs expended to

9

file the foreclosure and affidavit as to attorneys

10

fees which is plaintiff's counsels cost. So Brian,

11

you know, that was not given to him because that was

12

prepared by plaintiff's counsel.

13

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

14

Q

I see.

So you counsel did not provide you a

15

counsel of the affidavit of indebtedness?

16

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

17

Q

And did not provide you a copy of the

18

affidavit of costs?

 

19

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

20

Q

And did not provide you a copy of the

21

affidavit of fees?

 

22

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

23

Q

Okay.

With respect to No. 3, we've asked for

24

a representative with knowledge of facts supporting

25

plaintiff's standing. Did you make any investigation

0014

1

with respect to the plaintiff's standing?

2

A

Yes, I did.

3

Q

And tell me how you conducted that

4

investigation?

 

5

A

Can you -- again, can you ask more

6

specifically what you ware wanting to know from me?

7

Q

Absolutely. With respect to the investigation

8

that you conducted as to the plaintiff's standing, did

9

you have any conversations with anyone about the

10

plaintiff's standing?

11

MS. BALRAM: Objection: Privileged.

12

MR. WASYLIK: I'm not asking for contents of

13

the conversation, I'm asking if the conversation

14

existed.

 

15

Q

With that clarification, can you answer the

16

question.

17

A

My attorney and I, we had our day-to-day

18

conversations regarding the file, the case.

19

Q

Did you review any documents related to the

20

plaintiff's standing?

21

A

Specifically which documents?

22

Q

Any documents.

Page 6

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

23

A

Which documents -- which documents are you

24

asking me about? If you ask me a specific question

25

about a document, I can tell you if I reviewed it or

0015

1

not.

Ambiguous or vague documents, I can't tell you if

2

I reviewed them or not.

 

3

Q

All right.

If you needed to know whether or

4

not the plaintiff has standing, what documents would you

5

need to see?

 

6

MS. BALRAM:

Objection. Our witness has

7

knowledge of the loan, the servicing of the loan.

8

Questions of standing is a legal issue, and that's

9

not my client's field of expertise.

10

MR. WASYLIK:

Well again, we've asked for a

11

person with knowledge of facts supporting

12

plaintiff's standing. And the plaintiff has a duty

13

to produce somebody who is properly prepared to

14

answer questions about that.

15

MS. BALRAM: If you ask a specific regarding,

16

you know, exactly what you want to know about

17

standing, he can do his best to answer the question.

18

But if you ask about all documents regarding

19

standing, you know --

 

20

MR. WASYLIK:

Well, I'm asking --

21

MS. BALRAM: Name a document.

22

MR. WASYLIK:

--

what he did to prepare in

23

order to answer questions about standing. I presume

24

that you prepared him for that.

25

MS. BALRAM:

Yes.

0016

1

MR. WASYLIK:

Okay.

Well, we'll get into that

2

in a moment, then.

 

3

BY MR. WASYLIK:

4

Q

Now, with respect to No. 4, we've asked for a

5

person with knowledge of the authenticity of any notes

6

and assignments on which plaintiff relies. In the

7

course of preparing to answer questions about that area

8

of knowledge, have you reviewed the note?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

Have you reviewed any assignment?

11

A

Let me see what I have here.

The assignment

12

is -- since it is a Nationstar loan, the assignment is

13

ours, it's never transferred.

 

14

Q

With respect to the note that you reviewed,

15

can you tell me, was that the original note that you

16

reviewed, or was it an electronic or a Xerox copy of the

17

note?

18

A

It's a copy of the note.

19

Q

And from where did you obtain that copy?

20

A

My attorney provided me that note.

21

Q

Besides the copy of the note that your

22

attorney provided, did you review to any other copies of

23

the note?

24

A

The note was filed with the Court to my

25

knowledge.

0017

1 Q

2 attorney provided to you, did you review any other copy

3 of the note?

4

5 Q

6 for personal knowledge of the performance of any

7 conditions precedent to acceleration in foreclosure. Do

Besides the copy of the note that your

A

No.

The area of knowledge, number 5, we've asked

Page 7

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

8

you know what conditions precedent were performed by the

9

plaintiff?

10

A

More specifically?

 

11

Q

I'm not asking you to list them, I'm asking if

12

you -- do you know what conditions precedent were

 

13

performed?

14

A

More specifically, what are you --

 

15

Q

Okay. I'm asking you if you know what acts

16

the plaintiff took that were conditions precedent. If

17

you don't know, feel free to let me know; if you do

18

know, it's a yes or no question.

 

19

A

Condition precedent to what?

20

Q

To acceleration of foreclosure as provided in

21

the notice.

 

22

A

Yes. We breached the account.

We sent the

23

defendant a breach letter, as well, letting him know

24

that he was in default and when the default was due by

25

to bring the account clear.

 

0018

1

Q

Do you have a copy of the complaint with you?

2

A

Yes, I do.

 

3

Q

I'm going to ask you to turn to that.

The

4

first page of the complaint, Paragraph 3, says,

5

plaintiff is the owner of said note.

Can you tell me

6

whether that statement is true?

 

7

A

It is true.

8

Q

How do you know it is true?

9

A

Because the note indicates that Centex Home

10

Equity Company is listed on the note.

 

11

Q

So the basis of your knowledge that the

12

plaintiff is the owner of the note is the copy of the

13

note that you reviewed that was provided to you by

14

counsel?

15

A

No. Nationstar Mortgage is Centex.

 

16

Q

Okay.

And you know that -- well, let me

17

rephrase that. You a moment ago testified that the note

18

says that Centex is the original lender on the note?

19

A

Correct. They're one in the same.

 

20

Q

Right. And that Centex and Nationstar are the

21

same?

22

A

That's right.

 

23

Q

Okay.

So far I understand you.

The note that

24

you reviewed that bears the name of Centex is the

 

25

photocopy that your counsel provided to you; correct?

0019

1

A

That's right.

 

2

Q

Okay.

So your testimony today is not based on

3

the records of Nationstar, but is it based on the

 

4

records provided to you by counsel?

5

A

Ask that question again?

6

Q

The testimony that you have just given is

7

based upon not the records of Nationstar, put based upon

8

the records that were provided to you by counsel?

 

9

A

More specifically --

10

MS. BALRAM:

Object to form.

11

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

12

Q

What part of that don't you understand, so

13

that I can help you -- help rephase the question?

 

14

A

Ask the question again more -- it's a

15

little -- it's a little ambiguous so ask it --

16

Q

All right. You've testified just a moment ago

17

that the note has the name of Centex on it.

And I'm

18

assuming by that you mean -- well, let me clarify that.

Page 8

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

19

Are you referring to Centex Home Equity Company, LLC?

20

A

Yes, I am.

21

Q

And when I say "Centex," that's what we're

22

talking about, we can agree on that?

 

23

A

That's fine.

24

Q

Okay.

You testified a moment ago that the

25

reason you know that the plaintiff, Nationstar, owns the

0020

1

note --

2

A

Uh-huh.

3

Q

-- is because the copy of the note that you

4

reviewed had Centex as the payee; is that correct?

 

5

A

That's right. And because we are now --

6

Centex is now merged with Nationstar. Nationstar is

7

Centex, Centex is Nationstar.

 

8

Q

I see.

With respect to that information, in

9

order for that -- in order for the plaintiff to own the

10

note, you would have to be correct the note has Centex

11

on it; is that right?

 

12

A

The note does have Centex on it.

13

Q

And the reason you know that the note has

14

Centex on it is because you've reviewed a photocopy of

15

the note provided by your counsel?

 

16

A

I reviewed a copy of note which is filed with

17

the Court which has Centex on it, which was the original

18

document that the defendant signed at origination.

 

19

Q

Okay.

You said a lot of things there, and I

20

want to unpack them one at a time.

Earlier today, just

21

a few minutes ago, you testified that the only copy of

22

the note you reviewed was a photocopy of the note

 

23

provided to you by your counsel. Is that answer still

24

correct?

25

A

That answer is correct, too.

 

0021

1

Q

And you've reviewed no other copy of the note?

2

A

I have not.

 

3

Q

Okay. You've never seen the original note?

4

A

I've not seen the original note, no.

 

5

Q

You weren't present at the closing?

6

A

No.

7

Q

So other than the photocopy of the note that

8

your counsel provided to you, there is no other document

9

that you've reviewed that says that Centex is the payee

10

on the original note.

It's a yes or no question.

 

11

A

I believe I've already answered that question.

12

The name on the note is Centex.

 

13

Q

Okay.

The name on the photocopy that you

14

reviewed is Centex?

15

MS. BALRAM: Objection: Asked and answered

16

several times now.

 

17

MR. WASYLIK:

All right.

18

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

19

Q

Is that correct?

 

20

A

The name on the note is Centex.

21

Q

Well, I think we've established that you're

22

talking about the photocopy of the note, so let me

23

direct you to paragraph No. 4 of the complaint.

It says

24

the original promissory note was lost or destroyed

25

subsequent to the plaintiff's acquisition thereof. The

0022

1 exact time and manner of said loss or destruction being

2 unknown to plaintiff. When you reviewed the complaint,

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

4

true or false?

 

5

MS. BALRAM:

Objection.

Count 1 is a pleading

6

in the alternative. We've established that the

7

original note has been filed with the Court.

So

8

Count 1 is void and can be dropped from this action.

9

MR. WASYLIK:

Okay. Have you dropped that

10

count?

 

11

MS. BALRAM:

We have not.

Usually, it's done

12

at the summary judgment.

13

MR. WASYLIK:

MS. BALRAM:

MR. WASYLIK:

Well --

14

It's moot, so --

15

It's not moot because you

16

haven't amended your complaint, you haven't dropped

17

it.

So I'm entitled to ask a question about it.

18

And if you're instructing your witness not to

19

answer, please do that on the record; otherwise, he

20

can answer the question.

21

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

22

Q

When you reviewed the complaint, sir, did you

23

determine whether or not paragraph 4 was true or false?

24

A

No.

I didn't need to, because I had the note.

25

Q

You had the original note?

0023

1

A

We've already established that I didn't have

2

the original note.

3

Q

Paragraph 4 says the original promissory note

4

was lost or destroyed. Did you make any investigation

5

as to whether or not that was true?

6

A

No.

7

Q

As you sit here today, do you know whether the

8

original promissory note was lost or destroyed?

9

MS. BALRAM: Asked and answered. He's already

10

established that it's been filed with the Court.

11

MR. WASYLIK:

No, you have testified to that

12

effect.

I am asking him what he knows as the

13

corporate plaintiff.

14

A

And again, I've answered no, I don't know if

15

it's been lost or destroyed.

I have -- I have a note

16

that has Centex on it with defendant's signature.

17

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

18

Q

You have a photocopy of the note?

19

A

I have the note here --

20

Q

That is not the original note?

21

A

-- provided to me my attorney. I've already

22

established that this is not the original note.

23

Q

So you keep saying you have the note.

What

24

you have is a photocopy of the note.

And so you

25

understand that there's a difference between the two, do

0024

1

you?

2

A

Yes, I do.

3

Q

Okay.

4

THE WITNESS:

Off the record, if we can lay

5

the ground of respect, you to my attorney, you to

6

me, and vice versa.

7

MR. WASYLIK:

I have treated you with respect,

8

sir, and I ask that you treat me with the same.

9

THE WITNESS:

I will continue to do so.

10

MR. WASYLIK: Thank you.

11

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

12

Q

What I will ask you again is:

Not whether you

13

made an investigation of whether a photocopy of the note

14

was in your possession, but whether -- and I understand

Page 10

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

15

you didn't make an investigation in to paragraph 4. But

16

other than the investigation, is there any other basis

17

that you have of knowledge whether or not Paragraph 4

18

where it says the original note was lost or destroyed,

19

whether or not that's true?

20

A

Well, it doesn't say original note, it says

21

promissory note.

 

22

Q

Paragraph 4 says the original promissory

23

note --

24

A

My apologies.

25

Q

-- was lost or destroyed?

0025

1

A

My apologies.

2

Q

Okay.

3

A

And again my answer is, I didn't investigate

4

that.

5

Q

And because you didn't investigate that, you

6

don't have knowledge of it?

7

A

I have a note provided to me by my attorney.

8

Q

Okay.

My question -- let me rephrase my

9

question, because I think that's the source of your

10

confusion.

11

A

I'm not confused, I'm answering the question

12

as I know it to be.

 

13

Q

I asked you first whether you did an

14

investigation as to that paragraph, and you told me no;

15

then I asked you whether you had knowledge of the truth

16

of the paragraph.

Now, if you made no investigation, it

17

is very likely that your answer is going to be no, but

18

you may have independent knowledge of that. So that's

19

what I'm trying to get at here.

Do you have any other

20

knowledge as to the truth of that paragraph?

21

A

No.

22

Q

Paragraph 5 says the plaintiff was in

23

possession of the promissory note and was entitled to

24

enforce it when loss of possession occurred. Let me

25

take the first half of that.

Do you know whether

0026

1

plaintiff was ever in possession of the original

2

promissory note?

 

3

A

To my knowledge, we were.

4

Q

How do you have that knowledge?

5

A

This was -- we -- Centex which is now

6

Nationstar made the loan.

7

Q

Correct.

8

A

So therefore, we would have the original.

9

Q

All right.

My question is not whether you

10

would have had the original, my question is whether you

11

did have the original. And if you're making an

12

inference, that's fine, let me know that.

But I'm

13

asking what you do know?

14

A

It's an inference.

15

Q

Besides the inference, do you have any actual

16

knowledge of whether Nationstar, whether it's Centex or

17

Nationstar in name had possession of the note at any

18

time?

19

A

I wasn't at origination, so I can't answer

20

that.

21

Q

Your counsel has asserted that there is an

22

original note somewhere that's been filed with the Court

23

or is going be filed with the court.

Do you have any

24

knowledge as to that?

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

0027

1

Q

Your counsel has asserted that there's an

2

original note somewhere that is filed with the Court or

3

is going to be filed with the Court.

Do you know

4

whether that is true or false?

5

A

Where the note is, or whether they're going to

6

file it?

7

Q

Whether there's an original note that either

8

has been filed or will be filed?

9

A

To my knowledge, the original note has been

10

filed.

11

Q

How do you know that?

12

A

Again, because Centex made the note, and

13

because it -- and because in conversations with my

14

attorney, the note has been filed with the court.

15

Q

I see.

Let's move to Count 2, please.

With

16

respect to Paragraph 11, there are a number of facts

17

asserted in there. Did you make investigation into any

18

of the facts asserted in Paragraph 11 related to the

19

execution and delivery of note?

20

MS. BALRAM:

Objection to form.

Can you be

21

more specific.

 

22

BY MR. WASYLIK:

23

Q

Was there any single fact in Paragraph 11 that

24

you investigated?

 

25

A

Yes.

I looked at the mortgage, and I looked

0028

1

at the note.

 

2

Q

Is there any part of Paragraph 11 -- I'm going

3

to withdraw. Paragraph 12, where it says Plaintiff is

4

the owner of said note, you've testified that's because

5

the note was made to Centex which is Nationstar. Is

6

there any other basis for asserting that?

7

A

No.

8

Q

Has the note ever been endorsed to any third

9

party?

10

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

11

Q

Has the note ever been transferred to any

12

third party?

 

13

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

14

Q

Is there any way you could tell if it had

15

been?

16

A

The mortgage has not been or the note has not

17

been transferred. It's still -- it's still with

18

Nationstar.

 

19

Q

Paragraph 14 asserts that there's been no

20

payment on the note since August 1st of 2007.

Did you

21

determine whether or not that is true?

22

A

I did.

23

Q

And what was your conclusion?

24

A

That would be correct.

25

Q

How did you make that determination?

0029

1 A

2 Q

3 the account"?

4 A

5 payment made, I reviewed the notes of the account.

6 Q

7 plaintiff?

8 A

9 Q

I reviewed the account.

Specifically what do you mean by you "reviewed

I looked at pay history, I looked at the last

All of those being business records of the

That is correct.

Is the plaintiff servicing its own loan?

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

11

Q

No one else is servicing it for the plaintiff?

12

A

No.

13

Q

Has anyone else ever serviced this loan?

14

A

Not to my knowledge, no.

 

15

Q

Paragraph 18 asserts that there's a John Doe

16

and a Jane Doe who are unknown tenants who might be in

17

possession of the subject property. Do you see that

18

paragraph?

19

A

I do.

20

Q

Did you make any determination whether or not

21

there's unknown tenants in the property?

 

22

A

No.

23

Q

Do you know if there are any costs

24

attributable to attempting to serve John Doe and Jane

25

Doe?

0030

1

A

Because I didn't see the -- what's the word

2

I'm looking for --

 

3

MS. BALRAM:

The costs.

4

A

There you go.

Because I didn't see the amount

5

of indebtedness as far as the costs.

The answer is no,

6

I didn't.

I can't attest to.

7

Q

All right.

Can you tell me, sir, exhibits to

8

the complaint, what exhibits are attached to the

9

complaint you reviewed?

 

10

A

I have -- again, I have reviewed the note and

11

the mortgage and the account history and the pay history

12

and any documents subsequent as far as with -- that's

13

within my purview.

 

14

Q

Let me rephrase the question. The complaint

15

purports to attach at least one exhibit. Specifically,

16

I'll refer you to Paragraph 11 where it says a copy of

17

the mortgage is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

18

And that's the last sentence in the paragraph.

19

A

Okay.

20

Q

When you reviewed the complaint, did you

21

review any attachments to the complaint?

 

22

A

I have reviewed the mortgage.

23

Q

Okay.

And a copy of the complaint that you

24

reviewed had the mortgage attached to it?

25

A

It does.

 

0031

1

Q

Was there any other exhibit attached to the

2

complaint?

3

A

Not to my knowledge.

 

4

Q

The copy of the complaint that you reviewed,

5

where did you obtain that?

 

6

A

From my attorney.

7

Q

You did not obtain it from Nationstar's own

8

records?

9

A

The complaint would come from my attorney. So

10

it would come from my attorney.

 

11

Q

The answer is no, it didn't come from

12

Nationstar's records?

 

13

A

No, it did not.

14

Q

And you've testified that you did not review

15

any answer filed by the defendant?

 

16

A

Correct.

17

Q

So you did not review any of the affirmative

18

defenses contained in that answer?

 

19

A

That is correct.

20

Q

And you did not review any of the denials

21

contained in that answer?

 

Page 13

113632+WHITE.BRIAN+061411

22

A

That is correct.

 

23

Q

And you would not, then, be able to provide

24

testimony as to the truth of facts for any of the

25

defenses raised in that answer?

 

0032

1

MS. BALRAM:

Object to form.

If you ask a

2

specific question and he has the knowledge, he would

3

be able to testify to that.

 

4

MR. WASYLIK:

Okay.

5

BY MR. WASYLIK:

 

6

Q

Did you understand my question?

7

A

I did.

8

Q

Can you answer it?

 

9

A

I would concur with my attorney that if you

10

ask me a specific question, I can more than likely

11

answer it.

12

Q