No.

11-106846-A ____________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ____________________________________ Clarence (C.T.) Hansen and Kelly L. Hansen (Filed Separately) Defendant-Appellants

v.

MetLife Home Loans, A Division of MetLife Bank, N.A. Plaintiff-Appellees ____________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLANT ____________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS HONORABLE ROBERT W. FAIRCHILD, JUDGE DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 10-CV-122

Kelly L. Hansen, Pro Se 33605 W. 88th Street De Soto, KS 66018 913-529-9837 No Oral Argument Requested
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS NATURE OF THE CASE.4 ISSUES ON APPEAL....4 STATEMENTS OF FACTS.....5 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES.........8 I. A FAILURE TO PERMANENTLY PERFECT NULLIFIES...........8 SUNFLOWER'S MORTGAGE; NO LIENS CAN ATTACH AS A MATTER OF LAW DETERMINATION OF LIEN PRIORITIES Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009) Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, LLC, et al Hooge, J.R. & Williams, L. (2010) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.: A survey of cases discussing MERS authority to act. Norton Bankruptcy Law Adviser. Thomson Reuters/WEST. Issue 8. p. 11 In re Vargas, 396 BR 511 - Bankr. Court, CD California, 2008 In Re Martinez, 444 B.R. 192, (2011) Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, 283 Kan. 122, Syl. 1, 152 P.3d 53 (2007) Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528 (2009); Stauth v. Brown, 241 Kan. 1, 4-6, 734 P.2d 1063 (1987); K.S.A. 58-2222 K.S.A. 58-2309a II. FINDING OF FACTS UNSUPPORTED (IV, 485)..............................13 8.22 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Adams v. Bd of Sedgwick County Commrs, 289 Kan. 577, 584 (2009) Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 176, 83 P.3d 214 (2004) Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver, 289 Kan. 891, 900, 220 P.3d 333 (2009);

III.

INTRINSIC FRAUD (III, 308)........................................................15 8.12 FACTUAL EVIDENCE UNDISPUTED OR BASED SOLELY UPON DOCUMENTS
2

Stark vs. EMC Mortgage Corporation , 381 F.3d 793, 2004 Guzman et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB et al Thomsas v. Wells Fargo, N.A., Montgomery County Circuit Court (2008) David Brash v. PHH Mortgage Corp, Columbus (2009)

NATURE OF THE CASE This is a Mortgage Foreclosure Lawsuit. The appellant homeowners, Clarence G. (C.T.) Hansen and Kelly L. Hansen (divorced), pro se, are appealing the Summary Judgment Memorandum Decision awarded the appellee plaintiff, MetLife Home Mortgage dba MetLife Bank, N.A. by the Honorable Robert W. Fairchild, Division I, of the Douglas County District Court. ISSUE ON APPEAL Kansas Real Property Laws exist to protect the ownership interests of all landowners, homeowners, investors and lending institutions registered in the state of Kansas. Kansas Courts have consistently upheld the rights of a registered lien holder's superior security interest. Sunflower Mortgage Co. (Sunflower), the first lender in Hansens' chain of title, sold Hansens' Note to Ohio Savings Bank (Ohio Savings) on March 4, 2004. On March 10, 2004, Sunflower registered Hansens' fully satisfied Mortgage with the Douglas County Register of Deeds Office. Did Sunflower permanently perfect a lien on Hansens' subject property? Did Sunflower secure an assignable interest in the subject property? Did the Trier of Fact err by not finding that Sunflower failed to permanently perfect its lien on Hansens' Mortgage? All Mortgages in Kansas must be registered to hold a priority interest over all other bona-fide-purchasers. K.S.A. 58-2222. Filing imparts notice to all others. In order for the debt to remain secure within the chain of title as it is assigned to different lenders and servicers, it must be registered in the county records where the real property is located each time it is assigned. A Lender cannot enforce the mortgage without also
4

being in rightful possession of the Note. If an error is made in perfecting a lien, can the creation of an assignment correct the error? Does a bankrupt mortgage business have any assignable interest in real property? How about if a mortgage operation designates a special signor to execute noteworthy assignments from the bankrupt entity? Did the Trier of Fact err by not making a finding of intrinsic fraud and ultimately finding for MetLife on its Motion for Summary Judgment?

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 1. The Hansens' met with Sunflower Mortgage Co. (Sunflower) in Paola, KS

on March 4, 2004 (I, 7), to consolidate a $16,000 land loan and a $144,000 construction loan from their Bank, Wellsville Bank (Wellsville) (IV, 506-507) into a 15-year moneymortgage loan. (I, 94-95) 2. On March 4, 2004, C.T. Hansen executed a Note (Note) in favor of

Sunflower in the principal sum of $168,750.00, together with interest. (I, 14) 3. In order to secure the payment of the Note, the Hansens', who were at the

same time the owners and in possession of the Property, executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS), solely as nominee for Sunflower Mortgage Co., a certain real estate mortgage dated March 4, 2004, (Mortgage), whereby they conveyed and mortgaged the property unto MERS, solely as nominee for Sunflower Mortgage Co. (I, 18) 4. On the same day, March 4, 2004, Sunflower sold the Note to Ohio Savings

Bank (Ohio). (I, 14-17) ( II, 273) (IV, 485)

5.

On March 10, 2004, Sunflower registered a fully satisfied Mortgage for

record and recorded it with the Douglas County Register of Deeds. (I, 10) (I, 18) 6. Ohio Savings and the Hansens' did not enter into a new mortgage

agreement when Ohio Savings purchased the Note from Sunflower. MERS rules require a new Mortgage be created when the Note is purchased by bank that is a non-MERS member. Notes do not require registration at the Register of Deeds. Ohio Savings did not have a mortgage interest to register at the Douglas County Register of Deeds. (IV, 485) (III, 305) 7. Ohio Savings Bank serviced Hansens' mortgage loan from approximately

April 1, 2004 thru December 1, 2004; there no evidence in the record that Ohio is a MERS member. (III, 351) 8. Sunflower bankrupt. Last annual business report on file 12/2006; there no

evidence in the record that Ohio is a MERS member. (III, p.6 item 5, p. 346 Exhibit W) 9. First Horizon Home Loans serviced Hansens' mortgage loan from

approximately January 1, 2005, thru December 1, 2008; there no evidence in the record that Ohio is a MERS member. (III, 351) 10. MetLife Home Mortgage serviced Hansens' mortgage loan from

approximately January 1, 2009, thru July 1, 2009; there no evidence in the record that Ohio is a MERS member. (III, 351) 11. MetLife filed its first foreclosure action against the Hansens on June 3,

2009, before it purportedly "owned" Hansens' Note. 12 MetLife registered its first Assignment of Note and Mortgage on June 24,

2009. (III, 307, item 19)

6

13.

Judge Peggy C. Kittle dismissed MetLife's first cause of action on

November 4, 2009, without prejudice, because it filed its Petition to Foreclose before it registered its Assignment of Note and Mortgage with the Douglas County of Register of Deeds Office. (I, 83) (III, 306) 14. 2010. (I, 33) 15. 16. MetLife filed its second action on February 16, 2010. (I, 8) MetLife sold Hansens' Note to Fannie Mae on June 26, 2010, and Hansens' MetLife registered its second "Corrected Assignment" on February 8,

Mortgage was assigned to Fannie Mae by Corporate Assignment of Mortgage/Deed of Trust recorded August 23, 2010 in Book 1065 at Page 46. (MetLife's Exhibit B -- Our Exhibit T, Continental Title Company) The effective date of Exhibit T is August 18, 2010, so how it can reveal details on an assignment not yet assigned is a curious phenomenon. 17. Kansas law does require through K.S.A. 58-2309a that a mortgage holder

promptly release a mortgage when the debt has been paid; MetLife as a matter of law has been asked to file a mortgage release or a satisfaction of mortgage several times already. 18. MetLife is not registered to do business in the State of Kansas with the

Secretary of State or the Kansas Bank Commissioner. (III, 309, items 28 and 29) 19. MetLife is subject to Hansens' counterclaims, costs, special and punitive

damages. (III, 307, item 21, 308, item 24) (III, 416)

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION I. FAILURE TO PERMANENTLY PERFECT ORIGINAL MORTGAGE; NO LIENS CAN ATTACH AS A MATTER OF LAW DETERMINATION OF LIEN PRIORITIES Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009) Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) Hern v. Nichols, 1 Salkeld 289 In re Vargas, 396 BR 511 - Bankr. Court, CD California, 2008 In Re Martinez, 444 B.R. 192, (2011) Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528 (2009);
Leporin v. The State Exchange Bank of Hutchison, 113 Kan. 76, Syl. 5 (1923)

Stauth v. Brown, 241 Kan. 1, 4-6, 734 P.2d 1063 (1987); K.S.A. 58-2222 K.S.A. 58-2309a Hansens' Mortgage is a Wild Deed 20. On March 4, 2004, C.T. Hansen signed Sunflower's Note. MERS is not

mentioned in the Note. Thus, when Sunflower transferred the note to Ohio Savings on March 4, 2010, MERS was no longer an authorized agent of the holder unless it had a separate agency contract with the new undisclosed principal. No evidence can be found in the record regarding the lenders and servicers on Hansens' chain of title, and the status of each of their respective relationships with MERS. (III, 351) 21. In the Mortgage the Hansens' signed with Sunflower, MERS is designated

to act as their Nominee. But the MERS Corporate Resolution, Power of Attorney and MERS Membership Agreement between MERS and Sunflower are not in the record. (II, 147 -- Hansens' First Request for Production from all Parties) (II, 170)

Uniform Commercial Code/Kansas Recordation Requirements 22. Upon the signing of the Mortgage and by operation of law, the Mortgage

automatically attached to the Note and temporary perfection was established.1 23. However, because Sunflower failed to timely file the Hansens' Mortgage

with the Douglas County Register of Deeds, the temporary perfection did not transform into a permanent perfection and give notice. (IV, 531) Sunflower's failure to perfect their lien while it still had an interest to assign in Hansens' Mortgage is called a failure to perfect.2 24. Hansens' Note was immediately sold to Ohio Savings Bank, as the single

endorsement on the Note's Allonge will confirm. (I, 17) 25. In Kansas, all mortgages must be recorded. Landmark National Bank v.

Kesler, 289 Kan. 528 (2009); Because Hansens' mortgage was never perfected, no lien can attach to it as a matter of law. The Mortgage is nullified. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Hansens' Mortgage is considered a "Wild Deed."3

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011
2

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011
3

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011

26.

The Mortgage affects title to Real Property, and as such, the laws of local

jurisdiction govern and such requirement to comply with local laws of jurisdiction is contained within the Mortgage itself. The filing of record serves a second and distinctive purpose: it creates the priority of perfection among subsequent purchasers of the Note. 27. Upon attachment and perfection of the Mortgage to the Note, the

Mortgage Note becomes an indebtedness that is Secured. In the Hansens' case, this never happened. If the Mortgage becomes a nullity, then the classification of the Note is reduced in status from Secured to Unsecured and as a result of the Mortgage becoming a nullity the Power of Sale Clause contained within the Mortgage would also be nullity and no foreclosure is possible.4 28. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also

hold the deed of trust." Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009). ("[w]hile the note is 'essential,' the mortgage is only 'an incident' to the note" [quoting Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872)]). 29. Additionally, if the Mortgage was rendered a nullity, the secondary market

has not purchased a Secured indebtedness and any claim made by a subsequent

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011

10

purchaser including Trusts are without rights to enforce the Power of Sale Clause and no foreclosure is possible.5 30. Even with a nullified Mortgage, if a valid Note with a complete Chain of

Indorsement is proved, the Holder/Owner with right as Holder in Due Course could sue for equity in a court of jurisdiction. So when it is said the Mortgage follows the Notei, therefore the underlying Note would be followed by a valid continuous perfected Mortgage if there were compliance with applicable laws to maintain perfection of the Mortgage. 31. With all the failure of compliance with law in the creation of the

secondary market trusts, Hansens' are not surprised to see RoboSigning and RoboVerification by Michael A. Fisher in the Assignments of Mortgage and in the Corrected Assignment presented by MetLife Home Mortgage. The Notarization

statements are also considered fraudulent. And whomever took them to the deeds office for publishing, is guilty. Each of these are felony offenses. 32. It might be possible to prove up a lost note but you can NEVER prove

up a lost Perfection of Lien. Regardless of the number of Affidavits filed with the courts and regardless of the number of Assignment of Mortgages filed of record, none of these actions will perfect a lien once perfection has been lost. Proper procedure for default recovery of an unsecured notesuit for monies: but you cannot foreclose.

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011

11

33.

If filing for foreclosure. Nobody will have gotten anything for free, the

home is without a lien secured to the Note and the bank can still sue under the default on the Note if such note has not been discharged by willful intentional act as noted in the UCC.6

66

Amicus Curiae Mortgage Notes, http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-MortgageNotes, Additional Writings: http://www.scribd.com/alviec Copyright James McGuire/j.mcguire@swbell.net 817-4204151, Hedgerow Consulting Services Memphis, Tennessee, Revised September 29, 2011

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION TRIER-OF-FACTS FINDING OF FACTS UNSUPPORTED(IV, 485) 8.22 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Adams v. Bd of Sedgwick County Commrs, 289 Kan. 577, 584 (2009) Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, 283 Kan. 122, Syl. 1, 152 P.3d 53 (2007) Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver, 289 Kan. 891, 900, 220 P.3d 333 (2009); OMISSION AND CREATION OF MATERIAL FACTS The standards for weighing summary judgment are well settled. A party seeking summary judgment has the obligation to show, based on appropriate evidentiary materials, there are no disputed issues of material fact and judgment may, therefore, be entered in its favor as a matter of law. Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver, 289 Kan. 891, 900, 220 P.3d 333 (2009); Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, 283 Kan. 122, Syl. 1, 152 P.3d 53 (2007). In essence, the movant argues there is nothing for the trierof-fact to decide that would make any difference. The party opposing summary judgment must then point to evidence calling into question a material factual representation made in support of the motion. Shamberg, 289 Kan. at 900, 220 P.3d 333; Korytkowski, 283 Kan. 122, Syl. 1, 152 P.3d 53. If the opposing party does so, the motion should be denied so a fact finder may resolve that dispute. In addressing a request for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference that might be drawn from the evidentiary record. Shamberg, 289 Kan. at 900, 220 P.3d 333. An appellate court applies the same standards in reviewing the entry of a summary judgment. 34. MetLife claims it holds a valid first and prior lien against the real estate

described in its petition by virtue of a valid mortgage recorded March 10, 2004, in the
13

office of the register of deeds of Douglas County, Kansas, in book 924 at page 164, and at the time of recording, all recording and registration fees were paid in full. (I, 9) (Plaintiff's Continental Title Report -- MetLife sent to Wellsville in response to its Request for Production. Clerk of the Court will add to the Court file.) 35. 36. This material fact was omitted from the Memorandum Decision. (IV, 485) MetLife must hold the above lien if its Assignments of Note and Mortgage

and its Corrected Assignment are to be authenticated. 37. See Item 5 of the Court's Memorandum Decision. The record provides no

evidence that 'the Note, Mortgage, and Assignment to Ohio Savings Bank were all filed for recording with the Douglas County Register of Deeds', as is stated in the Trier of Fact's Memorandum Decision. (IV, 485) 38. An Assignment to Ohio Savings does not exist and the Douglas County

Register of Deeds does not show Ohio Savings on the title reports submitted by either party. (Exhibit T - Continental Title Company -- from Wellsville's Discovery. Clerk will add to Court file.) (I, 94-95- Kansas Land Title) 39. Moreover, an assignment from MERS conveys only the agency status that

MERS has established in the mortgage whereby it has limited powers to act solely as nominee for the Lender and for the Lenders successors and assigns. See Agard; BONY v. Silverberg)

14

HANSENS' COUNTERCLAIMS III. INTRINSIC FRAUD

8.12 Factual Evidence Undisputed or Based Solely Upon Documents Stark vs. EMC Mortgage Corporation , 381 F.3d 793, 2004 Guzman et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB et al Thomsas v. Wells Fargo, N.A., Montgomery County Circuit Court (2008) David Brash v. PHH Mortgage Corp, Columbus (2009) Hansens' submitted a motion in the District Court to file an Amended Pleading to Claim Punitive and Exemplary Damages. (III, 416) 40. The following case is about a lenders illegal actions. In this case, an

arbitrator found the lender's EMC Mortgage, forcible entry into the premises "reprehensible and outrageous and in total disregard of plaintiff's [sic] legal rights" and awarded $6,000,000 in punitive damages against EMC. Item 40 outlines some of the actions of MetLife. The list is certainly not exhaustive.

Stark vs. EMC Mortgage Corporation United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-2366 ___________ Stanley William Stark; Patricia Garnet Stark, Plaintiffs - Appellants, Appeal from the United States v. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C.; Scott Greenberg; EMC Mortgage Corporation; SpvG Trustee, Defendants - Appellees. ___________ Submitted: January 15, 2004 Filed: August 26, 2004 ___________ Before BYE, HEANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ BYE, Circuit Judge
15

The arbitrator found EMC violated the FDCPA and awarded the Starks $1000 each in statutory damages, $1000 each in actual damages, $22,780 in attorney's fees, and $9300 for the cost of the arbitration. The arbitrator found EMCs forcible entry into the premises reprehensible and outrageous and in total disregard of plaintiffs [sic] legal rights and awarded $6,000,000 in punitive damages against EMC. The arbitrators award was intended to punish EMC and to deter others from similar conduct. In arriving at the appropriate amount, the arbitrator specifically found the $6,000,000 award (amounting to one-tenth of one percent of shareholder equity) was not great punishment but it should act as a deterence [sic]. Appellees app. at 18; see also Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 963 S.W.2d 639, 655 (Mo. App. 1998) (holding under Missouri law the net worth of a defendant is relevant when determining the extent of punitive damages necessary to punish and deter the defendant). 41. MetLife has committed fraud by [a] not filing the required notice of

assignments as required by the U.S. Property Code; [b] manufacturing and filing a fraudulent notice of assignment and furnishing it as proof of their rights as holder or holder in due course with rights to enforce; [c] disregarding the rules and regulations of their Master Pooling and Servicing Agreements and Prospectuses by filing inaccurate reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission; [d] ignoring The Securities Act of 1933; [h] violating Kansas and each of their respective States' Business and Commerce codes; [i] violating Kansas and each of their respective States' Property codes; clear and convincing evidence that Hansens' are entitled to the relief sought. 42. The untrue statements were known to be untrue by MetLife when they

made the statements; the untrue statements were made both with the intent to deceive this
16

Court and the Hansens with reckless disregard for the truth; these untrue statements were made so the Court would justifiably rely on them and the Hansens would be forced to prepare a defense. For almost three years these documents have acted to the Hansens' ongoing detriment. The above elements to sustain an action for fraud are clearly evidenced in this case.7 43. Kelly "contend[s] the original assignment is void (Transcript p5, L6) and

the second corrected assignment ... a nullity because ... a void assignment, cannot be corrected." (Transcript p5, L15) In addition, the assignments were issued on dates the lender was defunct (III, 346) (Transcript p12, L7), and were signed by a known robosigner: Michael A. Fisher. (I, 105) (I, 110) (I, 112-116) He is not an employee of MERS, but is Vice President of Default Servicing for First Horizon. (I, 116) Hansens' have included additional Exhibits of Mr. Fisher's robo-signatures for other transactions. (III, 402) (I, 105, 110, 112, 114)

58-2218: False statement and certificate; penalty. Any officer who knowingly states a material untruth, in either of the certificates herein contemplated, may be indicted, and fined in any sum not exceeding the value of the property conveyed or otherwise affected by the instrument on which such certificate is endorsed.
History: G.S. 1868, ch. 22, 16; Oct. 31; R.S. 1923, 67-218.

Bomhoff v. Nelnet Loan Services, Inc. 279 Kan. 415, 422, 109 P.3d 1241 (2005); PIK Civ 4th 127.40.

17

Guzman v. Ocwen $3 Million Dollars Wrongful Foreclosure

Ocwen Federal Banksters have been clobbered in two recent Texas Law suits for wrongful foreclosure. In Guzman v Ocwen, in a Corpus Christi County Court, the jury awarded over 3 Million Dollars in settlement and found Ocwen having acted with "malice" in their criminal conduct supported by testimony adduced by two witnesses both of which were former employees of Ocwen. One was a PhD Internet Technologist specializing in Sarbanes Oxley Compliance Assessments which are required by law and the second is a former foreclosure specialist who quit after his conscience got the better of him - after nearly seven years of making 7-10 thousand dollars per month manufacturing foreclosures against innocent victims of Ocwen. (I saw this testimony with my own eyes and ears on Wednesday, 16 Feb 05 in Corpus. The evidence included making up numbers for payoffs with the numbers dreamed up so high that they insured a foreclosure posture instead of payoff, forgery (YES FORGERY) of forbearance agreements, and testimony from two employees saying that the business of Ocwen is to create foreclosures by any means. The second suit involved a deceased individual and her estate in San Antonio which was settled out of court 15 minutes after Guzman (same Guzman as the Corpus Christi case) was voir dired (sic) before the court but before his testimony was restated before the jury. It seems that Ocwen simply did not want to face Guzman a second time in the same month in the same state of Texas. These are dramatic revelations with far ranging implications for Ocwen since the testimony was videotaped as well a stenographically recorded under oath before a Texas Jury in a Texas Court Room resulting in a huge wrongful foreclosure verdict against Ocwen.

18

MetLife's Tactics to Mislead the Court 44. The correct Note is attached to the Petition for Mortgage Foreclosure (I,

14). It has one endorsement on it. (I, 17) MetLife refers to a note with endorsement(s) in its Memorandum in Opposition of the Wellsville Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for summary Judgment: (II, 273)

"Here, following the endorsements on the Note, it was assigned from Sunflower to Ohio Savings Bank, from Ohio Bank to First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, from First Horizon Home Loan Corporation to MetLife Home Loans, a division of MetLife Bank, N.A. See Exhibit B."

No.

It is these sort of tactics that give attorneys a bad name. See Exhibit B

(II, 273) One endorsement. Ohio Savings Bank. Bob Swiss, Counsel for MetLife, did bring a different note to the hearing he claimed was the original. He showed it to Ms. Hansen, and Mr. Ryburn. endorsements, and one more page. It had more

Had he tried to introduce it as new evidence, Ms.

Hansen would have objected. He never did. However, Ms. Hansen notes on page 36 on line 22 in the transcripts during Summary Judgment Oral Arguments, during a time when Mr. Swiss is discussing case law and providing copies to the Judge, he simply hands over the original note to the Judge. (Transcript p36, L22)

MR. SWISS: And the case law, and I want to reiterate that, and you have the original note that I gave you? Did I give you the original note? THE COURT: Uh-huh.

19

Hansen did not object because she did not hear him do it, he was taking copies back and forth to the Judge. Had she heard him do it, she would have objected on the grounds that Hansens' had a right to have an expert look at it the new "original" note; to have it carbon-dated if necessary; and to have the signatures authenticated. 45. If Swiss waited until Summary Judgment arguments to bring the new

"original" note, and then did not even attempt to correctly submit it into evidence, he did not have an authentic note. 46. Hansens' request $50,000 in sanctions against Martin, Leigh, Laws &

Fritzlin, PC for the actions in 32; 33; and in submitting the Assignments with Michael A. Fisher's signature; Director - Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Default Reporting at MetLife Home Loans, one of MLL&F, PC's largest clients; MetLife Home Mortgage Not Registered to do business in Kansas 47. K.S.A. 9-2203 requires MetLife Home Mortgage to be registered to

perform mortgage business in this state; to originate and fund a promissory note MetLife must be licensed; to service a mortgage loan, registration with the Kansas Bank Commissioner and the Secretary of State is required. 48. MetLife does take applications, underwrite loans, make decisions on

whether to extend credit, collect mortgage payments, hold escrows for taxes and insurance, and provides loan servicing functions. MetLife is a mortgage banker subject to license and registration requirements. 49. MetLife Home Mortgage (or any other mortgage entity) cannot claim they

are exempt from these requirements because they are a National Bank. The exemption does not apply here. In Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, LLC, et al the Supreme
20

Court drew a distinction between the proper exercise of visitorial powers by the Comptroller and the power of states to enforce compliance with their laws, and concluded that the National Bank Act preempted only the states visitorial authority, thus leaving to the states the right to enforce national bank compliance with state civil and criminal laws, including fair lending and other consumer laws. 50. MetLife is not registered to do business in the state of Kansas. Not with Any person who

the Secretary of State, nor with the Kansas Bank Commissioner.

willingly violates any of the provisions of this act, any rule and regulation adopted or order issued under this act commits a severity level 7 nonperson felony. A second or subsequent conviction of this act, regardless of its location on the sentencing grid block, shall have a presumptive sentence of imprisonment. (III, 309) MetLife Home Mortgage recently went out of business, how convenient/Fannie Mae Substituted/Cannot sue government/So Now What? 51. Fannie Mae will, according to January's "Notice of Sheriff Sale" apparently

be substituted at the Sheriff Sale vis a' vis the Memorandum Agreement, and MetLife Home Mortgage is no longer in business. Will that effect the outcome of this appeal? It is time to put an end to three years of fear and frustration. 52. MetLife will argue that all entities on the chain of title were members of

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) -- (if so, where is the evidence?) so an assignable interest remained with bankrupt Sunflower on June 11, 2009. Not true. Sunflower sold their interest to Ohio Savings on March 4, 2004, as stated many times previously. AND not only is Ohio Savings not a MERS member, there is no evidence in the record that any entity, including MetLife, is a MERS member.
21

Summary judgment is only appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because of Sunflower's failure to perfect (IV, 494), no lien can attach as a matter of law. Both parties admit the Note was sold to Ohio Savings on March 4, 2006. Both

parties admit Sunflower registered Hansens' Mortgage on March 10, 2010. Both parties submitted Title Reports. Hansens' Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Amend Judgment clearly states these facts. (IV, 494) The Trier of Fact failed to find the second fact a material fact, and did not rule in Hansens' favor. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied. [Citations omitted.] Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 176, 83 P.3d 214 (2004).

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF The facts the Trier-of-Fact missed are material. We move the appellate Court to review our case and decide if reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence. If yes, we ask the appellate Court to reverse the decision of the District Court, and award appropriate costs and damages, and answer a motion to Quiet Title on subject property of all encumbrances; or in the alternative remand to the District Court with directions. C.T. and Kelly claim they are entitled to relief based on the effect the last three years have had on C.T.'s business, Hansen Used Cars. His once excellent reputation has suffered because customer's question his financial stability, reliability, and longevity; annual sales have dropped to less than 50% of what they were in 2011 compared to 2007. C.T.'s business relationship with Wellsville Bank has suffered considerably. The only true secured loan on our home is one that Wellsville holds in the amount of $70,000, the security for it encompasses both business inventory and our home. Since MetLife filed this action, Wellsville, too, has become a Defendant, and they have received an OK from the District Court to foreclose what the District Court deems our 2nd Mortgage. Both C.T. and Kelly's credit ratings have plummeted; both have spent the three years since MetLife filed their 1st foreclosure doing very little but worrying and praying. Hansens' are entitled to their costs, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages. (III, 416) (III, 332) Lending and mortgage entities are running over the rights of homeowners in this country, altering documents, robo-signing, forging documents, and stealing homes. Only convictions against these entities, with large enough punitive

23

damages to get their attention, will make them stop. Fraud (at any cost) can no longer be OK.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this Wednesday, February 29, 2012,

Clarence G. Hansen, Defendant Owner 83 E. 1250th Road Baldwin City, KS 66006 7 85-760-2337 Phone hansencars@msn.com Kelly L. Hansen, Defendant Owner 33605 W. 88th Street De Soto, KS 66018 913-529-9837 Phone kellylhansen143@gmail.com

24

ANALYSIS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY GRANTING METLIFE THEIR MOTION TO SUBSTITUE PARTY PLAINTIFF FANNIE MAE AT ORAL ARGUMENTS DESPITE DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS. METLIFE IS NOW OUT OF BUSINESS Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence, 632 (5th ed. S. Symons 1941), pp. 72728, states the undergirding rationale: [T]he law does not allow litigant parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute, so as to prejudice the opposite party. Where a litigation is pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind require that the decision of the court in the suit shall be binding, not only on the litigant parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit, whether such alienees had or had not notice of the pending proceedings. [It is upon this principle of public policy, the object of which is to prevent parties from making a conveyance pendente lite of the property or thing which is the subject-matter of the controversy and thus defeat the execution of the court's decree, that the weight of modern authority bases the doctrine of lis pendens.]8 Once a problem with a lien is identified, a lender usually would file a claim with its title company underwriter. By promptly filing this claim, lenders may avoid a denial of coverage on the basis that a significant time lapse prejudiced the insureds interest.

WESTON BUILDERS DEVELOPERS INC v. McBERRY LLC 136 Md.App. at 563, 766 A.2d 241 25

David Brash v. PHH Mortgage Corp, Columbus (2009

A federal jury awarded a Fort Benning Soldier more than $20 million on Monday in a case against Coldwell Banker Mortgage -- an amount the plaintiff's attorney called necessary to get the company's attention. Jurors in the case of David Brash v. PHH Mortgage Corp., doing business as Coldwell Banker, deliberated for about six hours before ruling in Brash's favor. During the six-day trial, jurors heard that Coldwell Banker improperly reported Brash, 29, to credit bureaus which led to a "serious delinquency" on his credit report, that it refused to answer his questions or correct his account and damaged him emotionally, physically and financially, his attorneys and court documents say. "The jury was aggravated as to how he was treated," said Charlie Gower, an attorney who represents Brash. "I think the jury was just very mad because they were attacking David Brash the Soldier and basically calling him a liar." According to Brash's December 2009 complaint, the U.S. Army sergeant bought a North Columbus home in November 2007 and got his mortgage through Coldwell Banker. Brash set up automatic monthly payments because he was on active duty, and no problems occurred for almost 18 months. That's when Brash started getting numerous phone calls and letters about missing or making late payments. Brash tried several times through phone calls and letters to explain himself, and he was told a number of times that Coldwell Banker would correct the error, his suit states. Jurors heard recordings of calls Brash made, recorded by PHH Mortgage, in which Brash would be on hold for 30 or 40 minutes at a time with overseas customer service representatives, said Gower and Teresa Thomas Abell, another attorney representing Brash. "The longest time was 55 minutes -- listening to music or nothing," Gower said. In May 2009, Brash got a letter threatening to report his supposed delinquency to credit bureaus. Abell said her client was adamant that he not be reported, and the suit states Brash spoke with one representative for more than an hour about Coldwell Banker's error. The problems continued, and Brash hired Gower, who wrote a formal request to PHH Mortgage's president asking for written confirmation that Brash's account was current. Brash never received a response, Gower said, though adjustments were made to Brash's account.
26

Brash kept getting notices alleging he failed to make his payments, and he hired Gower again who sent another written request. Gower said that the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act restricts a mortgage company from reporting a customer during the 60business day period when they must respond to such a written request. In November 2009, Brash was reported as being "serious delinquent" to credit reporting agencies. Gower says in a release that PHH Mortgage accused Brash at trial of improperly filling out forms. An attorney for the mortgage company couldn't be reached late Monday afternoon. Jurors awarded Brash $1 million in compensatory damages plus $575 for out-of-pocket expenses. They awarded Brash $350,000 for attorney fees. The $20 million award was in punitive damages, Gower said. "The evidence showed that PHH Mortgage serviced approximately 1 million mortgages valued at $163 billion," Gower states in his release. "The jury verdict on punitive damages was necessary to get PHH Mortgage's attention."

27