0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
153 Ansichten20 Seiten
Defendant LPS and its division DOCX provided document processing services for Plaintiff AHMSI, including preparing, notarizing, and recording mortgage assignments. Without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, Defendants engaged in "surrogate signing" by having unauthorized persons sign assignments on behalf of AHMSI's authorized employees. This forced AHMSI to address legal issues and undertake an expensive remediation effort. Despite causing millions in damages, Defendants have refused to reimburse or indemnify AHMSI. AHMSI now sues Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that the parties' contract is valid, an order to compel arbitration, and damages for Defendants' unauthorized actions.
Defendant LPS and its division DOCX provided document processing services for Plaintiff AHMSI, including preparing, notarizing, and recording mortgage assignments. Without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, Defendants engaged in "surrogate signing" by having unauthorized persons sign assignments on behalf of AHMSI's authorized employees. This forced AHMSI to address legal issues and undertake an expensive remediation effort. Despite causing millions in damages, Defendants have refused to reimburse or indemnify AHMSI. AHMSI now sues Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that the parties' contract is valid, an order to compel arbitration, and damages for Defendants' unauthorized actions.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Defendant LPS and its division DOCX provided document processing services for Plaintiff AHMSI, including preparing, notarizing, and recording mortgage assignments. Without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, Defendants engaged in "surrogate signing" by having unauthorized persons sign assignments on behalf of AHMSI's authorized employees. This forced AHMSI to address legal issues and undertake an expensive remediation effort. Despite causing millions in damages, Defendants have refused to reimburse or indemnify AHMSI. AHMSI now sues Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that the parties' contract is valid, an order to compel arbitration, and damages for Defendants' unauthorized actions.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
/ l l" "r- IN THE DISTRICT Plaintiff, v. Defendants. AlVlERICAN HOl\1E MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC., and DOCX, LLC, PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiff American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. ("AHMSI") files this Original Petition against defendants Lender Processing Services, Inc. ("LPS") and its division, LLC C'DOCX" and collectively with LPS, "Defendants"), based upon AHMSI's personal knowledge as to its own acts and upon information and belief as to all other allegations. 1. PRELIlVlINARY STATEMENT AHMSI brings this action seeking redress for the millions of dollars in losses it has suffered, and continues to suffer, as a result of Defendants' unauthorized execution and notarization of assignments affecting more than 30,000 residential mortgages in Texas and throughout the Unites States. Defendants do not dispute that, 'without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, they improperly executed, notarized, and recorded thousands of assignments upon which AHMSI relied in the course of pursuing foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the securitization trusts that owned the loans; nonetheless, Defendants deny any legal responsibility to AHMSI, and have refused to indemnify AHMSI for the damages they have caused. As part of its residential loan servicing business, AHNISI collects mortgage, tax, and insurance payments from homeowners on mortgages held by securitization trusts. It also works PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 1 with homeowners who default on their mortgages to find acceptable alternatives to foreclosure, such as loan modification, deeds in lieu of foreclosure, and short sales. When these efforts are not successful in curing a default, AHMSI initiates foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the owner of the loan. AHMSl retained Defendants to prepare, notarize, and record assignments of mortgage in connection with those foreclosure proceedings. To facilitate Defendants' work, AHMSI's board of directors appointed various employees of Defendants as "Special Officers" of AHMSI, providing them with the limited authority to execute assignments in accordance with the terms of the board resolutions appointing them. Defendants acted outside this limited grant of authority. Without AHMSI's knowledge or approval and in violation of their contract with AHMSI, Defendants engaged in a practice they have described as "surrogate signing" in which persons not authorized by ARMSI's board executed assignments of mortgage by signing the names of the Special Officers who were explicitly authorized. Defendants then caused these unauthorized signatures to be witnessed and notarized, thereafter recording the assignments in the local real property records in connection with the related foreclosure proceedings. ARMSI did not learn of these practices until late 2009 when Defendants admitted the "surrogate signing" practice to AHMSI, at which time AHMSI ceased using LPS to prepare, notarize and record assignments of mortgage. Defendants' practice of "surrogate signing" mortgage assignments has forced AHMSI to address a myriad of legal issues, problems and proceedings in venues around the country. It also caused AH1vlS1 to undertake, at substantial expense, an extensive remediation effort to identify and, where necessary, remedy any surrogate-signed assignments of mortgage. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page2 Despite their contractual obligations and express promises to the contrary) Defendants have refused to reimburse or indemnity AHMSI for the costs it has incurred due to Defendants) practice of "surrogate signing." Indeed, only five months after expressly promising to indemnify AH1vlSI, Defendants for the first time claimed that they had no duty to indemnify AHMSI, purportedly because the contract pursuant to which Defendants executed the unauthorized assignments had expired before they had executed any assignments on AHMSrs behalf Defendants conveniently ignore that they created tens of thousands of assignments of mortgage and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment in accordance with the terms of a supposedly non-existent contract. 1 Because of Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations to AHMSI, ARMSI now brings this action seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the written contract between the parties, as amended, is binding and effective; (2) an order compelling Defendants to arbitrate AHIvISI's claims for breach of contract and indemnification; and (3) as to ARMSI's non-arbitrable claims, an award of damages sufficient to reimburse ARMSI for the millions of dollars in losses caused by Defendants executing, notarizing, and recording unauthorized, surrogate-signed assignments on behalf of AHMSI. II. INTRODUCTION A. DiscoveryControl Plan-Level 3 1. ARMSI intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4. J Given their position concerning the contract, AHMSI believes that Defendants will reject AHMSI's demand to arbitrate that is based on an express arbitration provision in that contract. Nonetheless, AHMSI has served Defendants witha demandfor arbitrationthat is attached heretoas Exhibit A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETJTION - Page 3 B. Parties 2. Plaintiff AH1'lS1 is a Delaware corporation that services residential mortgages primarily for the securitization trusts that own the loans. AHMSI is registered in Texas and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business at 1525 S. Beltline Road, Coppell, Texas 75019. 3. Defendant LPS is a Delaware corporation that provides-either independently or through its affiliates-mortgage document processing services, settlement services, mortgage performance analytics, and, mortgage default services to lenders and mortgage servicing companies. LPS registered to do business in Texas in March 2009 and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business at 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204. LPS may be served with process through its Texas-based registered agent, CT Corporation, which is located at 350 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, in Dallas, Texas 75201. 4. Defendant DOCX is a Georgia limited liability company that provides document processing services for lenders and mortgage servicing companies. DOCX is a division of LPS, and its principal place of business is at 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204. DOCX may be served with process by serving the Texas Secretary of State. C. .Jurisdiction and Venue 5. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under Sections 24.007 and 24.008 of the Texas Government Code. 6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over LPS (a) because it has engaged in continuous and systematic activities within the State of Texas, and (b) because this action arises fromand relates to LPS's contacts with the State of Texas. In particular, LPS processed lien releases, assignments, and other mortgage..related documents that it, or its agents, filed in county recording offices throughout the state, including in Dallas County. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETITION - Page4 7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over DOCX (a) because it has engaged in continuous and systematic activities within the State of Texas, and (b) because this action arises from and relates to D O C X ~ s contacts with the State of Texas. In particular, DOCX processed lien releases, assignments, and other mortgage-related documents that it, or its agents, filed in county recording offices throughout the state, including in Dallas County. 8. Venue is proper in this Court under (a) Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because Defendants recorded a substantial number of assignments in Dallas County, Of, alternatively under (b) Section 15.002(a)(4) because AHMSI resides in 'Dallas County. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. AHl\'lSI's Residential Loan Servicing Business 9. AHMSI is engaged in the business of servicing home loans, the majority of which are held in residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts. When an individual takes out a loan to buy a home, the originating lender will often pool the loan with others and sell its interest in the loans to investors through the creation of securitization trusts. As part of this process, an agent of the trust, known as a "servicer," obtains the right to service the pool of loans and agrees to act as the trust's agent in doing so. IO. As the servicer, AHMSI provides a wide array of services to the securitization trusts, including, but not limited to, collecting principal, interest, tax, and insurance payments from homeowners and, when necessary, initiating foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the trust that owns the loan. B. Defendants Agreed To Execute Assignments for AHMSI 11. DOCX began providing document processing services to AHMSI in April 2008 when a Professional Services Agreement (the "PSA") between predecessors Option One PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 5 Mortgage Corporation ("Option One") and DOCX, was assigned by Option One to AHMSI as part of a larger asset acquisition. (Exhibit B.) 12. Option One originally had entered into the PSA with DOCX over two years earlier, on January 9, 2006. oocxhad agreed to process lien releases and related documents, including assignments of mortgage, for Option One pursuant to a "Description of Services and Fees"-aIso known as a "Statement of Work"-which was attached as Exhibit A to the PSA. (It!. at 8-13.) 13. Among other things, the PSA required DOCX to "use its best efforts and judgments in performance of all Services and duties under this Agreement," to "provide such Services in an efficient, timely and professional manner, in accordance with industry and state regulatory standards," and "to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and requirements in regard to all Services provided under this Agreement." (ld., ~ 1, 16.) 14. Notwithstanding the PSA's stated one-year term (which expired on January 9, 2007), Option One and DOCX continued performing under the Statement of Work until April 30, 2008, when Option One assigned its contractual rights and obligations to AH1YfSI. At that time, DOCX began processing lien releases and related documents, including certain assignments of mortgage, for AHMSI, as it had done for Option One. At no time did Defendants claim that the assignment of the PSA from Option One to AHtvlS1 was ineffective or otherwise invalid. 15. Citing both the PSA and its assignment by Option One to AH1YlSI, on August 1, 2008, the PSA was amended to include additional assignment processing services ("Amendment I"). (Exhibit C.) Amendment 1 also contained a "Statement of Work" by which Defendants PLAINTifF'S ORIGINALPETITION- Page6 agreed to prepare and execute assignments of mortgage on AHMSI's behalf and to record the assignments in the appropriate jurisdiction. Lorraine Brown, President of Document Solutions, a division ofa division [sic] of LPS, formally executed Amendment 1 on October 10,2008. (Id.) 16. Though AI-HvlS1 never signed Amendment 1, its board of directors promptly approved the corporate resolution required by Amendment 1 to provide Defendants with signature authority to execute documents pursuant to Amendment 1. In particular, on August 13, 2008, AHMSfs board of directors authorized certain employees of Defendants, whom the board had already appointed as "Special Officers" of ARMSI in a July 1, 2008 resolution, to act as "duly authorized signator[ies]" for the purpose of executing assignments of mortgage on AHMSI's behalf. (Exhibit D.) The resolution charged the Special Officers with the limited authority to execute any and all reasonable and necessary documents required in connection with the assignment of mortgages or deeds of trust in connection with the repurchase of the loan secured thereby or upon the repayment thereof in connection with the refinancing thereof, including the execution of the assignment of the related promissory note and the execution of any endorsements or allonges thereto. (Id.) 17. Importantly, the authority of each authorized Special Officer was "specifically and strictly limited" to acting "solely in his or her capacity as an authorized signatory" of AHMSI. (Id.) The resolution did not permit any delegation or designation of the Special Officer's authority to other employees. 18. AH1vISI's board provided other similar resolutions, including a Unanimous Written Consent dated October 27, 2009 that appointed employees or contractors of LPS and DOCX as Special Officers of AHMSI for purposes of processing assignments and other mortgage-related documents. (Exhibit E.) PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETITION- Page7 19. Amendment 1 formalized what AHMSI and Defendants had been doing, and continued to do, under the PSA. Before initiating a foreclosure action for a particular property, AHIVISI's local foreclosure counsel would review a title report to determine whether an assignment of mortgage needed to be recorded in the local land records at some point during a foreclosure proceeding in order to memorialize the transfer of ownership from the originating lender to the securitization trust. If so, foreclosure counsel would request an assignment on LPS's computerized foreclosure tracking system known as "LPS Desktop." Upon receiving this request, Defendants prepared the assignment based on the relevant jurisdiction's requirements and, through the system, notified local counsel that it was ready for review. If local counsel approved, the Special Officers appointed by ARMSI were authorized to sign for the assignor, and Defendants' representatives then notarized the completed assigrunents. When completed, Defendants would send the executed assignment documents, as well as the recording fee, to an abstractor in the relevant jurisdiction, who would hand-carry the items to the county recorder "with instructions to return the recorded assignments to Defendants. Defendants employed this process to prepare, execute and record thousands of assignments for AHMSI throughout the United States, including in Texas. 20. For more than a year, Defendants provided assignment processing services tor which they were compensated by ARMSI in accordance with the terms and rates provided in Amendment l' s Statement of Work. At no time during that period did Defendants suggest that the PSA or Amendment 1 thereto had expired or was otherwise invalid. c. "Defendants Acted Outside Their Authority In Executing Certain Assignments for AHlVISI 21. Without AHMSI's knowledge or consent and by their own admission, Defendants allowed employees other than those appointed as Special Officers of AHMSI to execute certain PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page8 assignments on the Special Officers' behalf. Instead of signing their own names, the surrogates signed the names of the Special Officers, meaning that the person whose name appeared on the assignment documentation was not the person who appeared before the witness or notary. Notaries working under Defendants' direction and control improperly notarized the assignments containing signatures of surrogates rather than the Special Officers authorized by AHMSI to sign the documents. The delegation of signing authority to surrogates exceeded the scope of the Defendants' authority under AHMSI's corporate resolutions. As a consequence, the assignments executed by the surrogates did not comply with Defendants' contractual obligations. 22. On November 12, 2009, Clay Cornett, the president of LPS Loan Servicing Solutions-Default Division, contacted Norton Wells, AHMSI's chief operating officer, to request another corporate resolution appointing Special Officers and ratifying the actions previously taken by those officers. Shortly thereafter, Sheryl Newman, chief litigation counsel for LPS, sent Wells a proposed resolution that deviated from prior AHMSI resolutions in at least one notable respect. Unlike prior resolutions, which ratified "all actions previously taken by the officers hereby appointed," LPS's proposed resolution sought to ratify "all actions previously taken by the foregoing officers and/or their designees." (Exhibit F (emphasis addedj.) 23. It was not unusual for an officer or employee of LPS, such as Mr. Cornett or Ms. Newman, to contact ARMSI concerning the mortgage assignment services performed by Defendants pursuant to the PSA. By way of example only, on November 12, 2009, Deon Kammerath from LPS emailed Norton Wells and Jim Davis at AHMSI to tell them that Dave Holt had recently been named President of DOCX and that Mr. Holt would be in contact with them in short order. (Exhibit G.) PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page9 I 24. On November 16, 2009, AHMSI's board approved the resolution requested by ! LPS, but consistent with previous resolutions, the board ratified "all actions previously taken by I the Special Officers hereby appointed" that were "consistent with the foregoing resolution." (Exhibit H.) Because the resolution "specifically and strictly limited" the authority of the Special Officers to the ministerial act of executing mortgage assignments and other designated documents, the delegation of that signature authority to surrogates, without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, was not consistent with the resolution, nor was it consistent, with Defendants' contractual obligations to AHMSI. 25. In late November 2009, Defendants for the first time advised AHMSI that they had executed assignments of mortgage through their now discontinued "surrogate signor" practice. The scope of this unauthorized practice, however, was far greater than Defendants initially represented. Altogether, by Defendants' admission, Defendants' agents surrogate- signed more than 30,000 assignments of mortgage relating to properties in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 26. On December 2, 2009, LPS announced that, effective December 31, 2009, it would no longer execute documents on behalf of its clients, including AHMSL (Exhibit 1.) D. Defendants Breached Their Contractual and Other Common Law Duties To AHMm I 27. By processing surrogate-signed assignments, Defendants violated their contractual obligations under the PSA. For example, in paragraph 16 of the PSA Defendants agreed "to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and requirements in regard to all Services provided under this Agreement." (Exhibit B ~ 16.) In addition, in Paragraph 1 of the PSA, "DOCX represents and warrants that it shall use its best efforts and judgment in performance of all Services and duties under this Agreement and shall PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 10 provide such Services ... in accordance with industry and state regulatory standards." (ld. 11.) Defendants' practice of employing unauthorized surrogates to sign the names of the appointed Special Officers while the witnesses and the notaries attested that the surrogates appearing before them were the persons whose names appeared on the assignments did not comply with these provisions of the PSA. And many of these surrogate-signed assignments have been or are now being challenged in foreclosure actions, causing harmto AHMSL 28. Because of Defendants' breach of their obligations to AHMSI, thousands of foreclosure actions were delayed or restarted while AHMSI identified the affected assignments and undertook remedial action, as appropriate. AHIvfSI has incurred millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs as a result, including, but not limited to, legal fees and costs associated with correcting the surrogate-signed assignments, and amending the foreclosure pleadings. 29. Defendants also have breached their obligation to indemnify AHMSI for any losses or expenses it incurred as a result. Paragraph 8 of the PSA provides in relevant part: [Defendants] shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless [ARMSI], its officers, agents, employees, affiliates, authorized personnel and authorized users from and against all losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees) relating to or resulting from any pending or threatened action, suit, claim, demand, or proceeding, whether or not well grounded, any judgment or decision against [ARMSI], or any settlement agreement arising out of ... (ii) the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of [Defendants] and/or its employees; (iii) any failure of [DefendantsJ to perform any of its covenants or obligations under this Agreement; (iv) any acts by [Defendants] or [their] employees, subcontractors and/or agents beyond the scope of authority under this Agreement. (Exhibit B ~ 8.) 30. Further, because the use of surrogate signers deviated from AHMSI's limited delegation of signature authority and thereby exposed AHMSI to additional litigation and/or potential liability, Defendants had an affirmative obligation to inform AHMSI of the practice PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page II when it was first implemented. Instead, Defendants waited until thousands of surrogate signed assignments had been executed, notarized and recorded before informing ARMSI of the issue. E. AHMSI Has Undertaken Substantial Remediation Efforts 31. ARMSI has undertaken significant efforts to identify the loans that were affected by Defendants' surrogate-signing practice, and to determine what corrective action, if any, was necessary in each jurisdiction. For example, some jurisdictions required AHMSI to file corrected assignments and to amend the foreclosure pleadings, while others required ARMSI to restart pending foreclosure actions altogether or, if the foreclosure had already been completed, to rescind the foreclosure and restart the process . AHMSI has incurred millions of dollars in expenses and other costs in connection with these remediation efforts. F. Defendants Have Refused To Indemnify AHMSI for Its Losses 32. As discussed, paragraph 8 of the PSA requires Defendants to indemnify AHMSI for the costs incurred by their surrogate-signed assignments. In addition, after disclosing their "surrogate signing" practices to ARMS I in late 2009, Defendants expressly promised to indemnify ARMSI for whatever losses it suffered as a result of the surrogate signing practices. 33. On February 22,2010, ARMSI made a written demand for indemnification upon LPS, which stated: You [LPS] have agreed, in accordance with, but not limited to, the indemnification duties contained in Paragraph 8 of the PSA, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless ARMSI, its officers, agents, employees, affiliates, investors, authorized personnel and authorized users from and against all losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees) relating to or resulting from any pending or threatened action, suit, claim, demand or proceeding, whether or not well grounded, any judgment or decision against AHMSI , or any settlement agreement arising out of the material breaches described herein, whether those breaches be characterized as negligent acts or omissions, willful misconduct or failure to perform the obligations arising out of the PSA. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 12 (Exhibit J.) 34. LPS responded to AH:N[SI's demand on May 19, 2010. It admitted that, because of "a change in a business process, H certain assignments executed by DOCX "contained a notarization error." (Exhibit K.) LPS also claimed that DOCX had corrected the error and that LPS endeavored to work with AH"tv1S1 to address AHtvlsr s concerns, "notwithstanding the expiration of the terms of the agreement between the parties." (ld.) For the first time, LPS claimed that the PSA was not legally binding even though the parties had performed under the contract for over a year, even though Defendants had executed Amendment 1 after the stated term of the PSA ended, and even though AHMSI had repeatedly referenced it in corporate resolutions and in other communications without objection from Defendants. Moreover, during that time LPS had accepted payment from AHMSI pursuant to the fee schedule articulated by the PSA. Nevertheless, in response to AHMSrs formal demand, LPS only agreed on behalf of DOCX "to promptly review any request made by AH.rvISI for defense, indemnity or reimbursement on a case by case basis, withrespect to any demand for actual losses sustained by AHMSI that are directly related to the change in business process." (Id) 35. At various times in late 2010, AHMSI sought reimbursement from LPS for the damages AHMSI sustained due to the surrogate-signed assignments of mortgage. (Exhibit L (group exhibin.) In response, LPS acknowledged that certain assignments processed by DOCX "may have contained errors in their execution" and that LPS corrected those errors, but denied that DOCX provided the services under any contract. (Exhibit M.) Specifically, LPS noted that the PSA "expired within one year per its terms and was expressly limited to lien release services." (Id) It further noted that "there is no documentation indicating the initial term of the agreement was extended nor that the agreement was expressly assigned to AHMSI." (ld.) LPS PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETJTION -- Page 13 thus concluded that "there exists no contractual right to indemnity." (Id) Although denying any contractual obligation to reimburse AHMSI, LPS stated that it would consider reimbursement of only direct damages "upon receipt of appropriate documentation evidencing the amount of such damages and details connecting those damages to the services provided." (Id.) LPS also refused to consider any reimbursement of consequential damages. 36. Notwithstanding Defendants' contractual-obligations and their repeated promises to indemnify AHMSI, Defendants have not reimbursed ARMSI for any of its losses arising from their "change in a business process." (Exhibit K.) G. Defendants Have Refused to Arbitrate AHMSl's Claims 37. Paragraph 18 of the PSA requires the parties to arbitrate "[ajny disputes arising under [the] Agreement." (Exhibit B ~ 18.) Given that Defendants have denied the existence of the contract, it is clear that they will not agree to arbitrate the claims that: (1) Defendants breached the terms of the amended PSA, including that they were contractually obligated to indemnify AHMSI. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is AH:NISI's letter demanding arbitration. 38. Because Defendants refuse to acknowledge the existence of the contract under which AHMSI demands arbitration, AH1tlS1 seeks (1) a judgment declaring the amended PSA, including its arbitration clause, valid and enforceable at the relevant time of performance; (2) an order compelling Defendants to arbitrate AHIvlSI's breach of contract and indemnification claims; Of, as to all claims not subject to binding arbitration, and (3) an order granting AHMSI relief in the form of full indemnity of all costs and expenses resulting from the acts or omissions cited above, as well as, any and all other direct, indirect, special and/or consequential damages to which AHIvISI may be entitled at law or in equity. COUNTI-DECLARATORYJUDGMENT 39. AHN1S1 repeats the preceding allegations. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETITION- Page 14 40. AHMSI brings this count against Defendants for declaratory judgment 41. Under Sections 37.001 to 37.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, AHMSI seeks a declaration that the PSA, as amended, including the arbitration and indemnification clauses, was valid and enforceable at the time of performance because the parties mutually assented to its terms by their continued dealings and course of performance. 42. There is an actual and justiciable controversy regarding these issues because Defendants deny that the amended PSA is legally binding on the grounds that (1) the PSA had already expired by the time Defendants performed assignment processing services for AHMSI and (2) Amendment 1, which governs assignment processing services, was never signed by AHMSI. COUNT 2-0RDERCOMPELLINGARBITRATION 43. AHMSI repeats the preceding allegations. 44. AHMSI brings this count against Defendants for an order compelling them to arbitrate AHMSI's breach of contract and indemnification claims, as well as any other claims encompassed by the PSA's arbitration clause, pursuant to Section 171.021 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 45. There is a binding agreement to arbitrate under Paragraph 18 of the PSA because the parties have mutually assented by their course ofperfonnance to all of the P S A ~ s terms. 46. AHMSI's breach of contract and indemnification claims fall within the PSA's arbitration clause. 47. AHIvlS1 expects that Defendants will refuse to arbitrate under the PSA because they deny its existence. Specifically, they assert that the PSA had already expired at the time of performance and that Amendment 1 to the PSA was not signed by AHMSI. Nonetheless, AHIvISI served Defendants with an arbitration demand that is attached as Exhibit A hereto. To PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 15 the extent that Defendants refuse to arbitrate as AHMSI expects, AHlYfSI will .promptly file a motion to compel arbitration. COUNT 3-BREACH OF CONTRACT 48. AHMSI repeats the preceding allegations. 49. To the extent that the Court determines that AHMSI's breach of contract claim is not subject to arbitration, AHMSI brings this count, pled in the alternative, against Defendants for breach ofthe PSA and Amendment 1 thereto. 50. At all relevant times, the PSA and Amendment 1 thereto 'were valid and enforceable contracts. 51. AHMSI is a proper party to sue for breach of the PSA and Amendment 1 thereto because Option One assigned its interests in the PSA to AHMSI on April 30,2008. 52. AHMSI performed its obligations under the PSA and Amendment 1 thereto. 53. Defendants breached their obligations under the PSA and Amendment 1 thereto by engaging in a practice of "surrogate signing" assignments of mortgages, which assignments were improperly notarized and recorded in local real property records in connection with foreclosure proceedings brought by AHMSI in its role as the servicer ofthe relevant loan. 54. Defendants' surrogate-signed assignments of mortgage have damaged ARMSI by, among other things, requiring AHMSI to engage in an expensive remediation program to address the implications of the surrogate-signed assignments. COUNT 4-NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF AN UNDERTAKING 55. AHMSI repeats the preceding allegations. 56. Should the Court find that the amended PSA was not binding on the parties at the time Defendants executed and notarized assignments on AHMSI's behalf using surrogate PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETITION - Page 16 58. ARMSI relied upon Defendants to execute assignments on AHMSI's behalf. 59. Because demonstrating the chain of title is necessary for successfully completing foreclosure actions, Defendants knew or should have known that the proper execution of mortgage assignments was necessary to protect AHMSI's (and its clients') interests in the distressed properties. 60. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care by using, without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, unauthorized surrogates to execute tens of thousands of mortgage assignments. Because AHMSI had not appointed the surrogates to execute the assignments on its behalf and because their signatures were not correctly witnessed or notarized, the surrogate- signed assignments necessitated extensive remediation efforts at great expense to AHIvISI. 61. Defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of the substantial losses A H ~ f S I has sustained. Accordingly, AHMSI seeks monetary damages from Defendants in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 62. To the extent Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and without lawful justification or excuse, AHMSI seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. COUNT 5-NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 63. AHMSI repeats the preceding allegations. 64. AHNlS1 brings this count against Defendants tor negligent supervision. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINALPETITION- Page 17 65. Defendants owed AHMSI a legal duty to control the Special Officers employed by Defendants to execute mortgage assignments on AHMSl's behalf. 66. Defendants breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable supervisory control over the execution of assigrunents by the Special Officers. In particular, Defendants knew that the Special Officers were using, without AHMSI's knowledge or consent, unauthorized surrogates to execute mortgage assignments on AHMSI's behalf. The Special Officers' conduct constitutes negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking. Defendants knew or should have known that the use of unauthorized surrogates to execute mortgage assignments could harm AHMSI. Nevertheless, Defendants made no effort to prohibit or prevent the Special Officers from using surrogates until thousands of surrogate-signed assignments had already been executed and processed. 67. Defendants' negligent failure to supervise the Special Officers they employed was the proximate cause of the substantial losses AHMSI has sustained. Accordingly, AHMSI seeks monetary damages directly from Defendants in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 68. To the extent Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and without lawful justification or excuse, AHMSI seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. COUNT 6-QUASI-CONTRACT FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT 69. AHMSI repeats the preceding allegations. 70. Should the Court find that the amended PSA was not binding on the parties at the time Defendants executed and notarized assignments on AHMSI's behalf utilizing surrogate signors, AHMSI brings this count, in the alternative, requesting that the Court enforce a quasi- contract between the parties because Defendants have been unjustly enriched. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAl. PEnnON - Page 18 71. ARMSI compensated Defendants for processing assignments that had been executed and notarized utilizing unauthorized surrogate signors. Because ARMSI paid Defendants for processing these assignments, Defendants knowingly received a benefit to which they were not entitled. 72. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit. 73. It would be unconscionable for Defendants to retain the benefit without compensating ARMSI. Accordingly, AHMSI is entitled to recover the value it paid Defendants for executing and processing the surrogate-signed mortgage assignments. 74. Defendants were also unjustly enriched based upon their acceptance of AHMSI's . extensive remediation efforts. Defendants avoided the costs of taking their own corrective action. 75. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit of AHMSI's remediation efforts without compensating AHMSI. 76. It would be unconscionable for them to retain the benefit without compensating AHMSI. Accordingly, ARMSI is entitled to recover some or all of the costs it incurred to remedy the surrogate-signed assignments processed by Defendants. IV. JURY DEMAND 77. AHMSI demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this Original Petition. V. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 78. All conditions precedent to AHMSI's claims for relief have been performed or have occurred. VI. PRAYERFOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, ARMSI respectfully requests that this Court: PLAINTifF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 19 A. Declare that the PSA, as amended, including the arbitration clause, was valid and enforceable at the time of performance because the parties mutually assented to its terms by their continued dealings and course of performance, B. Compel Defendants to arbitrate AHMSI's breach of contract and indemnification claims, as well as any other claims encompassed by the arbitration clause. C. Award AHMSI general damages, special or consequential damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on its non-arbitrable claims. D. If necessary, disregard DOCX's status as a limited liability company and hold LPS liable for damages and any other obligations incurred by DOCX. E. Award AHMSI reasonable attorneys' tees and court costs. F. Award all other relief, in law or in equity, to which AHMSI is entitled. DATED: August 23, 2011 M I I Y S U b m ~ [//]/ Weston C. Loegering ... State Bar No. 12481550 Keith C. McDole State Bar No. 13533740 Evan P. Singer State Bar No. 24037501 JONES DAY 2727 N. Harwood Street Phone: 214-220-3939 Fax: 214-969-5100 .' .' DU-6364226v6 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Washington Mutual (WMI) - Objection To Global Settlement Agreement in Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Filed by United International Equity
Douglas D. Brunelle and Renee C. Brunelle v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Green Tree Servicing, Merscorp, Bank of America, Northwest Trustee Services