Gebhardt's Counter and Thrid Party Complaint Against LNV Corporation and D. Andrew Beal and Others

Case 3:12-cv-468
LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHERN DIVISION AT KNOXVILLE
LNV CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. CATHERINE GEBHARDT Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. D. Andrew Beal; Beal Bank SSB et al; Beal Financial Corporation, et al; LNV Corporation et al; Bret Maloney; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NealMikeLance Corporation, et al; Joyce Linger; Michael T. Bates; Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership, et al; Jerry D. Kerley; Guarantee Land Title, et al Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. et al; Jeffery W. Tshirhart; Lorraine Brown; Yet Unknown Unnamed Parties Third-Party Defendants Defendants Counter to LNVs Complaint and Cross Claim Civil Case No. 3:12CV468 ____________
I. THIRD-PARTIES
Defendant AND Third-Party Plaintiff Catherine Gebhardt Name: _________________________________________________________
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS Defendant No. 1
3753 Thomas Cross Road Street Address: _____________________________________________ Sevierville, TN, 37876 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 865-774-1248 Telephone No. ______________________________________________
D. Andrew Beal, c/o Beal Bank Name: _________________________________________________________ 6000 Legacy Drive Street Address: _____________________________________________ Plano, TX 75024 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 469-467-5000 Telephone No. ______________________________________________
COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM
Page 1 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Defendant No. 2
Beal Bank USA Name: _________________________________________________________ 6000 Legacy Drive Street Address: _____________________________________________ Plano, TX 75024 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 469-467-5000
Defendant No. 3
7195 Dallas Parkway Street Address: _____________________________________________ Plano, TX 75024 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 469-467-5000 Defendant No. 4
LNV Corporation, et al Name: _________________________________________________________
Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., et al Name: _________________________________________________________ 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360 Street Address: _____________________________________________ Lake Zurich, IL 60047 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 847-550-7300 Telephone No. ______________________________________________
Defendant No. 5
6000 Legacy Drive Street Address: ______________________________________________
Beal Financial Corporation Name: _________________________________________________________
City, State & Zip Code: ________________________________________ Plano, TX 75024 Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 469-467-5000 Defendant No. 6 Street Address: ______________________________________________ 202 Simmons Street City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Spencer, West Virginia, 25276
Joyce Linger Name: _________________________________________________________ Telephone No. _______________________________________________ 304-519-5225
Defendant No. 7
Michael T. Bates Name: _________________________________________________________ 2592 Creekstone Cricle Street Address: ______________________________________________ Maryville, TN 37804 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 865-983-6030 Telephone No. _______________________________________________
Defendant No. 8
Bret Maloney, c/o Beal Bank Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ 6000 Legacy Drive Plano, TX 75024 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 469-467-5000
Page 2 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468 Defendant No. 9
LNV Corporation v Gebhardt Jeffery W. Jeff Tshirhart, c/o Beal Bank Name: _____________________________________________________ 6000 Legacy Drive Street Address: ______________________________________________ Plano, TX 75024 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 469-467-5000 Telephone No. ______________________________________________
Defendant No. 10
Defendant No. 11
Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership Name: _________________________________________________________ 4000 International Pkwy, #3000 Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Carrollton, TX 75007 Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 972-862-5000
Defendant No. 12
NealMikeLance Corporation Name: _________________________________________________________ 4000 International Pkwy, #3000 Street Address: _________________ ____________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Carrollton, TX 75007 Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 972-862-5000 Jerry D. Kerely Name: _________________________________________________________ 800 Market Street, Suite 211 Street Address: _________________ ____________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Knoxville, TN, 37902 Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 865-545-4167
Defendant No. 13
Lorraine Brown Name: _________________________________________________________ Mark Devereaux, U.S. Attorneys Office C/O: _________________ ____________________________ Street Address: _______________________________________________ 300 N Hogan Street, Suite 700 Jacksonville, FL 32202 City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ 904-301-6300 Telephone No. ______________________________________________
Defendant No. 14
Guarantee Land Title Name: _________________________________________________________ 204 Parkway Street Address: _________________ ____________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Sevierville TN 37862 Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 865-453-1478
Page 3 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
II. JURISDICTION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. A case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. A case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages claimed is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case.
A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction (check all that apply)
X Federal Question X Diversity of Citizenship
B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory, or treaty right is at issue? 18 USC 63 et seq., (Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses); 18 USC 1961 et seq., ______________________________________________________________________________ (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); 12 U.S.C. 27 et seq., (Real ______________________________________________________________________________ Estate Settlement Procedures Act); 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., (Consumer Credit ______________________________________________________________________________ Protection and Truth in Lending Acts); 18 USC 47 et seq. (Fraud and False ______________________________________________________________________________ Statements); 18 USC 1348 et seq. (Securities and Commodities Fraud); 15 U.S.C. ______________________________________________________________________________ 77a, et seq., (Securities Act of 1933); 18 USC Chapter 11, et seq., (Bribery, Graft, ______________________________________________________________________________ and Conflicts of Interest); 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., (Equal Credit Opportunity Act); ______________________________________________________________________________ 47 U.S.C. 227(e) et seq. (Truth in Caller ID Act); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United ______________________________________________________________________________ States Constitution
C.
If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each party?
Tennessee Plaintiff(s) state of citizenship ___________________________________________ Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, West Virginia, Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship _______________________________________ Nevada ____________________________________________________________________
The court has jurisdiction over all defendants and Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. Additionally damages exceed $75,000.
Page 4 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

COUNT I Violation of Privacy of Consumer Personal Financial Information Counsel for LVN failed to block out my social security number on the Exhibits he filed to support LNVs Complaint and other pleadings. This is an egregious violation of my right to the privacy of my Nonpublic personal information and it is a violation of the rules pertaining to electronic filing of legal proceedings in this court. Identity theft is a serious concern and now my social security number has been in the public record for a year. I beg the court to take immediate action to block out my social security number on these Exhibits and to reprimand LNVs counsel for making it public.
COUNT II Defendants: Joyce Linger, Jerry D. Kerley, Guarantee Land Title, Michael T. Bates, Sebring Capital Partners Inc., yet unknown or unnamed parties. Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Origination I, Catherine Gebhardt, a single mother of four children, arrived in Sevierville in the year 2002 in Tennessee for a job transfer/promotion. My children and I arrived to live in Sevierville on or around September 30, 2002 though we had visited Sevier County for two days the previous month, to see the attractions in the region, and at that time, I with my children met with realtor Teresa Brooks who represented ReMax First Choice Realtors. Up to that time, Id only spoken with Teresa Brooks a few times by telephone when I was still in Texas. Teresa Brooks showed me and my family a few properties on the market during that short visit. I was interested in one property shown by Ms. Brooks which is now the property involved in this court action. I made an offer through Teresa at which time in good faith, I also put earnest money down with Teresa in the amount of $ 2,500.00. With my family I then returned to Texas.
Page 5 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
In the meantime, Teresa Brooks started to organize temporary corporate housing. I had told her we planned to move to Sevierville as quickly as possible, as all of my children were of school age and the school year had already begun, therefore time was of the essence. After the corporate housing arrangement was finalized by Ms. Brooks, I with my children and their beloved pet came to TN to move into the corporate set-up on or around September 30, 2002. Teresa Brooks introduced me to Broker Joyce Linger, who said that she could organize financing and that it would be no problem, based upon my income. At the time of moving to Sevierville, I knew no one else in the area and was not familiar with most land and property values in Sevierville or in Sevier County. I was, however, highly motivated to find a home for my children and all persons associated with me at that time knew this to be true. Joyce Linger gave me a few documents to sign during our first meeting, concerning obtainment of financing. I had no knowledge the process of securing financing, nor what documents were to be signed, nor what exactly was involved, as I relied on Joyce Linger as a broker to guide me in the right direction. Looking backward now, I can certainly attest that the entire process was extremely unorganized and chaotic. Ms. Brooks tried her best to act as a liaison to facilitate the process, however she herself was becoming increasingly frustrated with the chaos and at one time within days of the closing date, voiced this aloud to both Neal and Joyce Linger while in their office; which resulted in Ms. Brooks being abruptly thrown out of Joyce Lingers office at PrimeOne Group by Joyce and her then husband, Neal Linger. At this time, Ms. Brooks was very upset and came to my office (which was also in a central downtown region within fairly close proximity to PrimeOne) and told me that she had been removed from the Linger office by forcefully being told to get out! Ms. Brooks also stated at that time, that in all of her twenty some odd years in working in real estate, she had never been kicked out of an office or asked to leave by a party so aggressively. Within just days after this occurrence, Joyce Linger called me and said that she had gained approval for the loan and she
COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM Page 6 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
projected a certain date for closing, though for unknown reasons, that closing date was rescheduled from the date projected earlier by Joyce herself, to a later date, being November 7, 2002. On November 6, 2002, I received a call from Guaranty Land Title. The party who called (I cant remember exactly who) told me I would need to bring $15,000 plus to closing the following day in the form of certified cashiers check. On November 7, 2002, I attended the closing at Guaranty Land Title in Sevierville which started at approximately 1:00 pm. To the best of my recollection, in attendance at the closing, were Teresa Brooks of ReMax, Pioneer Realty Representative (name unknown), Ronnie and Sandra Sullivan (sellers), Joyce and Neal Linger (PrimeOne Group brokers), Jerry Kerley (attorney), and Lafonda OQuinn (notary). At closing, I was given multiple documents to sign by Jerry Kerley and Joyce Linger. I was led to believe that Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership was the lender. I signed these multiple documents with the understanding that these papers were genuine closing documents. It is noteworthy to mention that two transactions occurred on that day, relating to the same property. The first transaction was for the purchase of the house of which I was led to believe by broker Joyce Linger, was to be funded by Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership. The second transaction was between me and the seller for the purchase of three additional vacant acres, adjacent to the property with the house, of which the seller financed and this financing had nothing to do with the lender, Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership. During closing, Neal Linger (husband of Joyce Linger) approached me and stated that their fees were not included in the monies made payable to Guaranty Land Title, and I had to leave the closing table to trek to the bank and obtain additional monies; though the bank was closed. I wrote a personal check and was directed by Neal Linger to make the check payable to Guaranty Land Title for the broker fees which he
Page 7 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
said were not included. After a long and tedious day, Joyce Linger gave me the keys to the house and told me I could take possession of the house on that day. I with my children and their pet, moved into the house on the night of November 7, 2002. Within the first two weeks of taking possession of my home I received a notice in the mail which stated, Welcome to Homecomings Financial. I had no idea who Homecomings was, but I followed the instructions on the letter directing me to send payments to them. I was very happy to do this as I was happy to have found a permanent home for my family. I did however find this rather strange, as Id just left the closing table two weeks before, believing Id be paying Sebring Capital Partners, LP. The Deed of Trust (DOT) naming Michael T. Bates as Trustee filed in Sevier County land records by the Lingers and Jerry Kerley, a partner in Guarantee Land Title, was not the DOT I signed at closing. I initialed each and every page of the DOT I signed at closing. Kerley did not notarize anything that was signed at the closing; all notarization was done by Lafonda O'Quinn. Yet the Deed of Trust filed with the county was notarized by Jerry Kerley and my initials are not on a single page. This is highly irregular as it is common practice in the mortgage industry for a borrower to initial each page. I discovered this altered DOT only after LNV filed its Complaint against me in September 2012. Michael T. Bates appears as Trustee on numerous DOTs filed across the southeastern United States; he is also named as a party in an insurance fraud investigation initiated by the United States. Michael T. Bates in 2002 was employed as an executive vice president with Southern Title Insurance Corporation, a regional title underwriter, based in Richmond VA, with an office in Knoxville TN, which per the securitization audit report, may be one of the insurance policies taken on the my property as a credit default swap at the loans origination.
Page 8 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Shortly after LNV filed its Complaint I took my origination and closing documents to Michael Alfred, CPA, in Maryville for review and a professional opinion. Alfred examined all the critical financial documents and found many serious discrepancies indicating a misappropriation funds and so many differences between various points of reference on the financial disclosures in the contract that no contractual terms or agreement could possibly be discerned. Different loan amounts and terms are reflected on each of the disclosures; i.e. the Truth in Lending Disclosure, the Settlement Statement, the DOT, the Note, etc. This is a violation of TILA and RESPA. LNV brings their action against me for breach of contract. A legally enforceable contract must have clear terms and mutual agreement between parties to be valid and enforceable. Close examination of the alleged original contract shows a much more sinister reason for all the financial discrepancies noted above; FRAUD. I had received a letter from Sebring dated November 4, 2002 verifying they had received my loan application, yet I was asked to sign new loan application at closing. I discovered on or around May 2013, after I finally obtained records Id been requesting from Jerry Kerleys office since 2011, that someone altered that loan application. The copy I found in Kerleys records showed that I was not an American citizen and did not buy my house for residential purposes. I signed an occupancy certificate at closing that was also signed by Kerley. My children and I did occupy the house and have occupied the house for residential purposes. I am an American citizen. This false loan application had to have been altered sometime after closing and may have been used by Kerley, Linger and/or others for personal gain. I must have signed a blank loan application at the closing. In fact, a blank uniform residential loan application was attached as Exhibit A to my answer to LNVs Complaint prepared by my former counsel, Doug Taylor, and filed on September 27, 2012. This blank loan application with my signature was also
Case 3:12-cv-468
found in the records received from Kerleys office. A review of the records in their entirety, and the gross discrepancies which exist, this blank loan application may have been used for any number of transactions by Kerley and Linger without my knowledge. I discovered from the Alfred examination of my loan documents that the $28,000 I had arranged to pay directly to the seller Sullivan for the extra acreage as a separate contract was actually added into the Sebring loan. I did not receive those funds. I made regular payments of $425/month directly to Sullivan for the extra acreage. My separate contract with him included a balloon payment due at the end of 2004, but I nearly died in a car accident on September 16, 2004 and was hospitalized several months so I could not pay the balloon payment and Sullivan and I mutually agreed to rescind our separate contract. Kerley and the Lingers apparently kept the extra $28,000 with other funds they had padded into my loan; including the additional money I was made to pay at closing because the Lingers claimed their fees was not included. Considerable evidence exists to substantiate my claim of conspiracy between Kerley, Guarantee Land Title, Bates and the Lingers to defraud me during loan origination. On or around December 2012 I requested a full history of my homeowners insurance policy back to the inception of my mortgage from Kevin Yates my Allstate agent. The records were archived so Retrieval took time. They came in April of 2013. My insurance policy I paid for at closing was canceled within one month. I phoned my agents office to ask why. Kristine Meyers verified with their corporate office that the original policy was written too high, far exceeding the actual value of my home. Christine further explained that Rick White who originally wrote the policy had done so at the direction of Joyce Linger or the lender, [Sebring.] Kristine said that Rick White closed his franchise and sold his assets to Kevin Yates in or around December 2002 and when Yates discovered the canceled policy he rewrote it for a lower home value and the corporate office accepted it. A new appraisal was not done. The
Page 10 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Allstate corporate office and/ or Yates Allstate did issue a refund because the policy was re-written at a lower cost, however the refund did not come to me. The appraisal had been for $286,000 exactly the amount asked for by the seller and is dated November 7, 2002. It was prepared by Joyce Linger's relative, Virginia Johnson. I had no way to know at the time that this was an over-inflated appraisal. Joyce Linger misrepresented and failed to disclose the actual loan terms and the loan costs and fees added into the loan as required by TILA and RESPA. These misrepresentations and omissions were knowingly made by Kerley and Linger. I relied on these material misrepresentations and omissions. Kerley and Linger knew I would rely on them and expected me to rely on them. My reliance on their intentional misrepresentation caused me to enter into a highly predatory loan contract to my detriment and for the unjust enrichment of Kerley, Bates, Linger and others. I also had a title search done after LNV filed their Breach of Contract Complaint against me and discovered that Jerry Kerley prepared and filed a warranty deed in Sevier County as part of the closing on November 7, 2002. This was to show that the property was clear from all encumbrances and liens. Sullivan was paid on November 7, 2002. Land records show that Sullivan still had a Washington Mutual lien on the property that he personally paid off or around December 2, 2002. Other land records exist that cast doubt on the title. Several loans appear to have been taken out on the property by Sullivan and it is unclear whether they were all paid off. I was sold a property with an existing lien and without a clear title; this was not disclosed to me and is something which would have or should have been known by Kerley. Kerley, the Lingers, Sebring, Bates and others did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of executing such
Case 3:12-cv-468
scheme and artifice which directly caused me to suffer significant pecuniary loss, inconvenience, discomfort, and substantial mental distress as a result. Jerry Kerley has already been convicted on criminal charges of mortgage fraud. (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey WHALEY, and Jerry D. Kerley, Defendant.) I am a victim of Kerleys crimes. A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on defendants as to the facts supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705 (1975)) Fraud nullifies everything it touches. THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY AND NEGOTIABILITY OF THE ALLEGED CONTRACT LNV ALLEGES IT HAS AQUIRED IS DISPUTED.
Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Securitization On August 30, 2013 I ordered a professional securitization audit on my mortgage. The audit was done by former police officer and private investigator, Bill Paalato, of BP Investigations. His investigation uncovered that: 1. Sebring was stated as the Lender on the Deed of Trust when in fact Sebring was not the true and actual lender, but rather Sebring was acting as a Table-Funder. Table funding is generally defined as: A lending method employed when a loan originator does not have access to the money necessary to make loans and then hold them until it has enough to sell on the secondary market. The originator forms a relationship with a lender/investor that
Case 3:12-cv-468
provides the funds for closing and immediately takes an assignment of the loan. This is called table funding. Under regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, table-funded loans must disclose service release premiums, i.e. profit received by the originator on the loan closing settlement statement. (Source: The Free Dictionary by Farflex, which can be found at http://financialdictionary.thefreedictionary.com/table+funding. This website cites The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. as a source for its information. Id.) None of these facts were disclosed to me as required by RESPA. I relied on Sebrings misrepresentation that they were a lender with an interest in properly recording her monthly payments and accurately applying them to the loans balance when in fact Sebring had no such interest because their intent was to immediately sell my mortgage into the secondary securitized mortgage market; which they in fact did. 2. Shortly after origination, evidence shows that mymortgage was sold to the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust (the Trust), and was paid off within the Trust on or about July 1, 2007 with the Trust declaring zero losses. Evidence shows that this particular trust obtained insurance policies on the loan pools to which there were multiple beneficiaries of these policies. 3. Evidence suggests that the subject loan (mine) was involved in hypothecation fraud whereby the Note and Deed of Trust where pledged and sold in multiple directions simultaneously. There does not appear to be any disclosures that my loan was in fact securitized and paid off. 4. Common "securitization" of private label MBS Trusts show a fact pattern where the subject Note and Deed of Trust were pledged as collateral to a securitized trust, yet the legal conveyance of the
Case 3:12-cv-468
asset to the trust either never occurred, or was illegal and in direct contravention of the trust's governing document (the "Pooling & Servicing Agreement"). 5. The "Cut-Off Date" for assets to be transferred to the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust was January 1, 2003." The Depositor was Residential Asset Securities Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy on May 14, 2012, New York Southern Bankruptcy Court, Case number: 1:12-bk-12054. The Master Servicer was Residential Funding Corporation. (RFC)
6.
My loan was originated on November 7, 2002 with the "lender" on the DOT being "Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership." ("Sebring") A copy of the Note was provided which bears a blank, unexecuted endorsement by the originating entity on the bottom of the signature page. This is evidence that the note was prepared for sale immediately upon closing.
7.
We know that the loan was indeed sold in the Trust because it shows up in Trust database data:
Page 14 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
My loan is identified as loan number "8263393" within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust. (Note: Loan numbers often do not match the original assigned numbers on the Notes and DOTs.) Additionally a snapshot of the RASC 2003-KS1 dated August 28, 2013 shows list of 8 "Tranche" / Classes within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust with 8 tranches being "paid off." Loan level history / data within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust show the loan as being current with an ending balance of $236,681.71 on July 1, 2007. The trust shows a Current Gain Loss Amount of 0. The loan characteristics and identifiers are an identical match to my loan regarding the interest rate, rate caps, and margin. PDV RASC 2003-KS1, August 28, 2013, shows history and paid off dates for all Tranche level data within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust. 8. The named Originator in the Trusts internal data is Residential Funding Corp (RFC) and not Sebring. This raises questions about how RFC obtained the loan, and why RFC misrepresented to the investors that it was the loans originator. 9. I received a welcome packet from Homecomings Financial Network (Homecomings) on or around December 1, 2002. I wasnt sure why I was to pay Homecomings instead of Sebring, but I made payments to Homecomings as instructed in the welcome packet beginning on January 1, 2003.
Page 15 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
I now understand I may have been paying the wrong party. From page 133 Paragraph 399 of John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.(NY 2012): On October 27, 2010, Katherine Porter, then a visiting a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in consumer credit, consumer protection regulation, and mortgage servicing, provided testimony before the Congressional Oversight Panel: The implications of problems with transfer are serious. If the [securitization] trust does not have the loan, homeowners may have been making payments to the wrong party. If the trust does not have the note or the mortgage, it may not have standing to foreclose or legal authority to negotiate a loan modification. On or around July 1, 2007 on my payment statements Homecomings was replaced with GMAC LLC with a Waterloo, IA address. At this time I had no idea that this change was indicative of a change in servicer or that my DOT was assigned away from Sebring; I had no knowledge or understanding about land records or deed assignments or mortgage servicing at that time. I did not know that such changes required notification under RESPA. I never received any notification regarding the change on my payment statements and continued making my payments, assuming Homecomings maybe changed their name and business location. Beach of Contract by Securitization parties (third-party defendants) Loans that made up pools in the Trust were essentially converted into stock certificates. Investors in the Trust purchased certificates that did not provide them with an undivided interest in any one particular loan/mortgage. Thus the original terms and conditions of the mortgages and deeds of trust were changed without the borrowers consent. This constitutes breach of contract, and violates the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and RESPA. And my property after securitatization was no longer collateral for the loan.
Page 16 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Securities and Commodities Fraud The Note and DOT for my mortgage were created and used to perpetuate a fraud. My loan went into the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust as a hologram and was eventually paid off in July 2007 by insurance. The goal in this massive Ponzi Scheme was / is to expedite or manufacture a so-called default by the borrowers of the underlying loans in order to trigger the insurance clauses. The failure to record the assignments and sales to the Trust entities, and the failure to disclose the Trusts interest in my Note and DOT and subsequent payoff of such, creates a fatal defect in the chain of title and chain of trustee that cannot be re-engineered. Any party attempting to claim ownership of my note and DOT after July 2007 has unclean hands.
COUNT III Defendants: Sebring Capital Partners Inc., NealMikeLance Corporation, MGC MortgageInc., Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., LNV Corporation, D. Andrew Beal, Beal Bank SSB, Beal Financial, Bret Maloney, Jeffery W. Jeff Tshirhart; yet unknown or unnamed parties. Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Servicing and Forclosure Fraud I paid Homecomings as directed either through check by phone, certified cashiers check, or by Western Union Quick Collect. I paid Homecomings Financial up until on or about the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007 when I was directed by mail, that the servicing of this mortgage would be transferred to GMAC. Then I began to pay GMAC at the address provided. After paying GMAC for quite some time, I was again directed to pay another party: MGC Mortgage Inc. (MGC). After paying MGC in October of 2008, I was instructed by GMAC personnel over the phone to again pay GMAC, claiming that the transfer to MGC had not yet fully finalized but not to worry.
Page 17 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
This is where my ordeal became very confusing and strange as I had been paying a lot of money to GMAC and MGC. During this time, I repeatedly asked questions but most often I could not reach anyone at MGC and whenever I did, they were not helpful or knowledgeable about anything and had no answers about what happened to my payments. Whenever I reached someone at GMAC, I was given excuses. In essence, I was given the major runaround, though I continued to pay. On or around December of 2008, I was told by GMAC personnel that the transfer from GMAC to MGC Mortgage had still not finalized completely and that my payment would soon be increasing to over $4000.00 per month; I became upset and questioned this reason for this increase. I was told that if I did not comply with this increase, I would be foreclosed upon. I requested GMAC personnel to put this payment increase in writing of which they never did. Fearful of losing my home, I paid the $4080+ beginning early in 2009 as demanded by GMAC. After this time, I believed something was amiss and started to ask even more questions. During this time, there was much talk on the news about loan modifications and governmental bailouts, so I hired a local mortgage broker to attempt to modify this loan because the payment was astronomically increased without explanation. This broker worked hard on my behalf but could not succeed at modifying the loan nor could she get any explanations about the huge increase in my payments. I hired a second broker and she too attempted to make sense of all that was happening to my loan. She also made numerous inquiries and calls to GMAC only to meet with the same resistance and confusion I had met, and she received the same excuses by GMAC and MGC, with no solutions. I sent two inches of documentation repeatedly to GMAC by facsimile at least five times yet the company claimed on two occasions to have never received it, claimed on at least two occasions that documentation was not uploaded to their system, and claimed multiple times that a decision had not yet been rendered.
Case 3:12-cv-468
The website for GMAC fully supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program and claimed to support loan modifications and it was well known that GMAC took troubled relief money from the government. I was still asking questions, only my questions kept falling upon deaf ears and not being addressed or answered by anyone. I also consulted with an attorney in and around this time who told me that legally I was entitled to see certain documents which GMAC continually failed to produce. I then rigorously took it upon myself to investigate these companies, and in the process of this investigation, found out that the address given by MGC, 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX 75024, for mailing payments is an empty lot. At this point, I was not prepared to send any more money to an empty lot when so many of my payments had already been misappropriated. MGC and GMAC through their own shenanigans caused my loan to go into default and since I had already paid exorbitant amounts of money that was never credited to my account; I decided to stop making payments until a proper accounting was provided for the payments I had already made. In or about April 2009, I received a foreclosure notice from a law firm named McCurdy and Candler located in Georgia. I retained the counsel of attorney Andrew Farmer who obtained a temporary restraining order from a Sevier County circuit judge to halt the trustees sale. Then he filed a Complaint in Sevier County Circuit Court in my behalf against GMAC Mortgage Corporation and MGC for unconscionability and adhesive contract. I made no claims of fraud at that time, because I had not yet discovered evidence of fraud. Opposing counsel requested the case be removed to Federal court. Farmer felt this was appropriate. I relied on his judgment. However Farmer missed some filing deadlines and this case was ultimately dismissed against me with prejudice. This case has been referenced in Hartleys pleadings as Gebhardt I. I dont remember any debt demand letter being sent prior to this 2009 foreclosure attempt.
Page 19 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
In December 2009, my daughter was shot by a neighbor, in the presence of two witnesses. She sustained serious injuries and required major medical care as well as counseling. This ordeal took much of my time and energy to resolve/ adjudicate and is a matter of public record. My daughter is still recovering. Around June 2011 I was advised by a credible Sevier County attorney to contact Congressman David Phil Roes office. Press coverage at that time disclosed many improprieties had been suspected or committed by large corporate banking and financial institutions resulting in improper foreclosures, so it was hoped if I enlisted the help and support of my Congressional representative I might finally get some answers and resolution to my problems with GMAC and MGC. On or about August 1, 2011, I prepared a sworn affidavit and filed it in the Sevier County Register of Deeds office explaining my difficulties in obtaining a full accounting of my mortgage payments and other requested documents from all the companies involved up to that point. I also reached out to many government agencies and government authorities for help during this time. A second foreclosure attempt was made in on September 16, 2011. Id never heard of the foreclosing party, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (Dovenmuehle). I never paid them and had no prior communications with Dovenmuehle whatsoever. I also received communications that named another company Id never heard of: LNV Corporation. By this time I was not only confused, but physically, emotionally, and mentally exhausted by the ordeal Id been put through and at a stage of complete physical and emotional breakdown. As a single mother I had to push forward and carry on the fight to protect my childrens home and provide them the stability and security they deserve. In response to a demand letter sent to me by Shapiro and Kirsch I consulted a professional legal advisor to review the mountains of documentation pertaining to my mortgage and to write a letter in my
Page 20 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
behalf disputing the debt as per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and to make a qualified written request under RESPA for written verification of the debt and a full accounting of my payments. Shapiro and Kirsch never provided proof of debt or an accounting of my payments. I retained Douglas E. Taylor, Esq. who stopped the second foreclosure, by obtaining a temporary restraining order issued by the same Sevier County Circuit judge who knew about the civil action filed in behalf of my daughter, as well as the ongoing criminal court actions pending against the perpetrator of my daughters shooting. Counsel Taylor advised me to make an appearance at the scheduled court-house sale because he feared that in view of all the strange events that had transpired from the inception of my loan the parties involved might try to move ahead with the sale despite the signed temporary restraining order. I could not leave my work so I sent a friend to this sale, who reported back that the auctioneer did try to ignore the signed judges order by saying that she could not contact the attorneys in Memphis who were pushing for the foreclosure. My friend escorted her into the Mayors office where the auctioneer was instructed to send the judges order to Shapiro and Kirsch by facsimile and then to follow-up with a telephone call to verify they had received the judges order. On or about September 23, 2011, I received a call with a voice mail message from a woman who identified herself as Vanessa with MGC. She wanted to know if I had received the hardship package she claimed was sent to me. I thought this to be very strange, being that this call came one week after the attempted second foreclosure where Dovenmuehle claimed to be the party foreclosing. I never received a hardship package, nor had I ever asked MGC for one. In September 2013 I did a reverse telephone look up on the number Vanessa used to phone me and it traced to a company called MTG Operations, not MGC or LNV Corporation.
Page 21 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
On my 2011 tax forms (1098 form) Dovenmuehle was listed as the servicer for MGC. On or about September 23, 2011 my Counsel, Taylor filed suit in my behalf in the Circuit court of Sevier County TN against LNV Corporation, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc, Shapiro and Kirsch LLP, Joyce Linger as (DBA) PrimeOne Group Inc. I relied completely on my Counsel, Taylor, and never knew exactly what happened with this case. For reasons unknown, broker Joyce Linger was not sued individually. The only thing I heard from Taylor was that PrimeOne Group in Knoxville had already been dissolved. I did not know who the opposing counsel was at that time though I thought it was Shapiro and Kirsch LLP. I relied completely on the guidance and direction of my counsel, Taylor, who suggested we voluntarily non-suit my complaint because the way the paperwork from the opposing counsel was written it could be brought back within a year in the Circuit Court. I now believe that there were two law firms involved as opposing counsel in 2011. My now former counsel, Taylor, told me when the breach of contract suit was filed in 2012 by LNV that he again was dealing with the same guy as last time meaning Kevin Hartley. A full year passed without demands from any company whatsoever, during which time I continued to pay my now former counsel, Taylor on a regular and ongoing basis. I fully expected him to put up a fight for me. On or about September 4, 2012 I received a certified letter which was a debt demand letter written by Ronald Steen Jr. of Stites & Harbison and which was carbon copied to an attorney named Jeff Tschirhart. On or about September 5, 2012 I received a summons from a process server for LNV Corporations claim of Breach of Contract in Federal Court and I immediately informed my now former counsel, Taylor. At that
Page 22 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
time I told Taylor I wanted to file a counter suit naming third parties because I had collected strong evidence of fraud that I did not have in 2011. Taylor never told me that we had a 14 day deadline to do this. I made continued and regular requests for him to file a counter complaint that included third parties. I completely trusted him and thought he was waiting for me to gather more evidence. Now I realize he may have been intentionally working against me in favor of LNV by delaying discovery and by not filing a counter complaint naming third parties as I requested him to do last year. Taylor contacted the opposing attorney (Kevin Hartley) on September 26, 2012 and requested validation and verification of the debt. Hartley responded by saying that they did not have to provide any such accounting, as Ms. Gebhardt is aware of the claims made against her and her debt has been previously verified. This is untrue. In spite of my numerous requests for verification of the debt dating back to 2009 none has ever been provided. Taylor received from Hartley a letter dated September 26, 2012 that stated he was enclosing documents in an email to verify the validity of the defendants debt. Nothing in these emailed documents validates or verifies this alleged debt; and in fact many of these documents prove the opposite that LNV had fabricated numerous false and fraudulent documents with intent to deceive me and others regarding their false claims. Most disturbing, this letter from Hartley also stated that the opposing counsels client, LNV, was never a party to any law suit. I questioned Taylor about whether process of service was ever made, which to date, he has not answered. Shortly after LNV filed its Breach of Contract Complaint I took a friend with me to meet with Taylor and discuss how he should defend me. It was mutually agreed that I would, in conjunction with
Page 23 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
others, continue to research and investigate LNVs claims and furnish Tayor with our findings and evidence to support my position specific to a counter claim naming third parties. I was advised that I could serve interrogatories upon LNV as part of discovery so I compiled several interrogatory questions and sent them to Taylor in December 2012, January 2013, and March of 2013. Each of these emails also stated my desire to move forward with a counter complaint adding third parties and a jury demand. This can be substantiated with copies of the email transmissions. I came to learn only during the past few weeks that Taylor did nothing with those interrogatories. On or around mid May 2013, I visited Taylors office to show him two examples of strange mailings Id received over a period of time by U.S. Mail. Two of these letters pertained to changes in interest rate as per the London Inter-bank Offer Rate, abbreviated LIBOR index. These two separate mailings received in May 2013 both contain Pitney Bowes metered postage. Both envelopes were postmarked May 2013 yet one of the letters enclosed was dated May 2012. Both of these letters contain a Lake Zurich Illinois address yet the envelopes they came in have a metered postage stamp with a Jacksonville, Florida zip code. The MGC letterhead on the letters looks different from anything else in my possession with MGCs letterhead. In May I considered this strange, but in September I discovered they are evidence of fraud. Several times my interest rate was changed illegally. Letter from GMAC Mortgage dated 11/6/2008 stated my interest rate will be adjusted effective 1/1/09. The LIBOR index interest rate stated on this letter was 3.12100% yet the true published LIBOR for January 2009 on a 2/6 arm (fixed for two years and interest adjusting every six months), which is what I am locked into, was 1.6211%, much lower than what GMAC stated in their letter. A letter dated May 13, 2011 from MGC Mortgage Inc. states that my interest rate would change effective 7/20/2011 and that the new index interest rate was 0.43050% while the actual LIBOR rate for this time period effective in July 2011 was 0.4139%. A letter from Homecomings dated
Case 3:12-cv-468
June 9, 2006 stated that my interest rate was about to change effective June 1, 2006; more than a week before the letter was dated. In August and September of 2013 I sent two wire fund transfers to a Bank of America account as instructed in a demand letter. (Bank of America Chicago IL ABA Number 026009593 8666116790) During the past year I have been comparing documents and experiences and research with a group of other victims of MGC, LNV and other companies created by D. Andrew Beal who is the ultimate owner of both MGC and LNV. We noticed that several of us had been sent demand letters with this same Bank of America account provided. Initial research into this account prompted us to further verify it as Bank of America told us repeatedly that it was not a valid account. I volunteered to pay to send a wire transfer. I thought it would be rejected and I would then have documentary evidence that it was not a valid account. I was surprised when it actually went through. I, and others in our victim group, reached out to some people we know in law enforcement to find out what could be going on. It was suggested that a Bank of America employee must have setup an account that was not detectible by Bank of Americas computer systems, and that this was possibly being done illegally. I sent a second wire transfer, this time not directing it to Chicago as instructed and this time the transfer was rejected. Then my bank manager received a strange phone call by someone identifying himself as Charles King. The caller ID on the phone showed U.S. Government and he said he worked for a government agency. The same day the first wire transfer that was initially accepted was returned. Both return receipts show Dovenmuehle as the receiver of the funds. One of the return receipts states: RETURNING WIRE FOR LN, 1423946779 PER CHARLES KING REQUEST. Members in our victim group investigated Charles King and found an attorney with this name works for Dovenmuehle and another man named Charles King works with Bank of America in Jacksonville, Florida; who also has connections with Texas Holdem.
Case 3:12-cv-468
D. Andrew Beal is an infamous gambler and a supporter of online gambling and high stakes Texas Hold em. D. Andrew Beal is linked to an international gambling ring operated by the Russian mob. According to an April 2013 federal criminal indictment: The Nahmad-Trincher Organization used online gambling websites, operating illegally in the United States, to operate an illegal gambling business that generated tens of millions of dollars in bets each year The Nahmad-Trincher Organization laundered the proceeds of the gambling operation through a host of American bank accounts people who personally attended the games in question including household names in the world of finance such as Daniel Andrew Andy Beal, chairman of Beal Bank, who makes no secret of his enjoyment of and expertise in poker, along with others who are less eager to publicize their affinity for Texas hold em. One of the Beal victims in our group asked her representatives office about the government agency Charles King told my bank manager he worked for and she was told no such government agency exists. Caller ID spoofing can falsely make U.S. Government show up which is illegal. Charles King has no business identifying himself as a U.S. government employee when he is not. In a breach of contract claim, where LNV is the direct beneficiary for which MGC was allegedly collecting payments, LNV cannot claim that I breached the contract when they themselves breached the contract by not properly accounting for my payments. The most basic of performance expectations a borrower holds when they take out a mortgage to finance their home, the largest investment they are likely to make in their lifetime, is that the mortgage holder will record their payments and apply them accurately to the loans balance from its inception to its conclusion; and when mistakes are made that they will be corrected. This did not happen in my case. The expectation of such performance for a mortgage lender is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. LNV and MGC and their predecessors breached the implied covenants of their contract with me as early as October 2008.
Case 3:12-cv-468
If an enforceable contract ever existed; which evidence shows it did not, then LNV cannot claim breach when they themselves and/or their predecessors breached the alleged contract as early as October 2008. Furthermore in a breach of contract claim the non-breaching party is only entitled to recover its actual damages. Based on reliable data this is likely less than $10,000. LNV (aka D. Andrew Beal) is only entitled to the amount it/he actually paid; not to its/his speculative gains. Furthermore the debt Beal allegedly purchased was unsecured due to the bad faith actions of the Trust from which he purchased it; and Beal knows he purchased unsecured debt. Advertisements he placed in the Wall Street journal and other trader publications substantiate this. Forclosure Fraud, Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses LVN claims to have acquired the DOT and Note by assignment from RFC. Evidence suggests that RFCs claims to the DOT and Note are based on fraud. If RFC doesnt have valid claim to the DOT and Note; then neither can LNV have a valid claim to the DOT and Note. LNV has attached to its Complaint as Exhibit A what it claims is a copy of the original Note signed by me on November 7, 2002. I disagree that this Adjustable Rate Note (Note) produced by LNV is the original Note. The signatures on this alleged original Note produced by LNV are forged and falsified signatures. My signature has been electronically added onto this document. Gebhardts signature forged on LNVs alleged original Note Although I signed a Note on November 7, 2002 it did not contain the signatures of Gayna Yeager, Judy Faber or Notary Amy Marie Bean. These signatures were added at a later date and not in my presence. This in and of itself might not be evidence of fraud, however when the facts alleged in the Note produced by LNV are compared with the land records and other mortgage documents it can be proved that fabrications,
Page 27 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact were intentionally and knowingly made by LNV and others with intent to deceive me and others, including this court, for the purpose of encroachment on the my property and to injure me by depriving me of the enjoyment of my property for which I have already paid consideration in excess of $200,000; and when such encroachment would deprive me and my children of their home and the stability a home provides a family with children. My signature on the alleged Floor Rate Addendum to Note in LNVs Exhibit A to their Complaint appears to have been electronically copied and pasted onto this document, as well as onto other documents produced by LNV. My signature is alleged by LNV to be the original wet signature. It is impossible for white spaces around the pen strokes of the signature to exist on an original wet signature. (See Exhibit A on page 48 of 51) Two independent professional evaluations have determined that the signatures on the alleged original Note and other documents LNV has produced and submitted to this court as genuine in support of their claims are in fact forgeries and false signatures. Gayna Yeager signatures are forgeries on LNVs alleged original Note Evidence exists that multiple individuals have signed as Gayna Yeager on land records across the country when in fact they are not Gayna Yeager. In addition, Gayna Yeager has been identified in these alleged land records and in LNVs alleged original Adjustable Rate Note as both Vice President of Sebring and Vice President of NealMikeLance Corporation; and Gayna Yeager has allegedly authenticated the signatures of others on such land records pertaining to property throughout the United States as a Notary commissioned in the State of Texas.
Page 28 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Gayna Yeager has violated her oath taken with the State of Texas and Texas laws by allowing other individuals to forge her signature and/or by notarizing documents where the signers were not physically located in Texas and did not sign in her presence or were not the individuals for which they signed. On page 4 of 9 of LNVs Exhibit A, the alleged original Note, Gayna Yeagers signature appears with that of Judy Faber who is identified as the Vice President of Residential Funding Corporation located in Minnesota. The signatures of Gayna Yeager and Judy Faber are forgeries and false signatures.
Examples of at least six variations of Gayna Yeagers signature are shown above. Even to an untrained eye it is obvious these signatures are not made by the same individual and they are not consistent
Page 29 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
with Gayna Yeagers official signature I obtained from the Texas Secretary of State Notary Public Unit on October 10, 2012. Judy Fabers signature is false on LNVs alleged original Note There are also validity issues pertaining to Judy Fabers signature on LNVs alleged original Adjustable Rate Note. Judy Faber has been named in numerous lawsuits involving fraudulent foreclosures and she been deposed in Bass vs. US Bank, her testimony pertaining to her job duties shows that she is a ro-bo signer and the North Carolina Court of Appeals in that case, which has many similarities to this case, found that US Bank is not the Note Holder. (US Bank is not the Note Holder North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank)
Page 30 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
As with Gayna Yeager, multiple variations of Judy Fabers signature exist on land records filed with county recorders across the nation; this is evidence of forgeries and false signatures; and this is consistent with the manner and means the United States identified as the crimes in their indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown, former owner of DocX, Fidelity National Financial Inc. and Lender Processing Services (LPS) for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District; United States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.) False Assignment filed with Sevier County on 4/24/2003 An Assignment of DOT filed with Sevier County on April 24, 2003 was very recently found. This assignment was difficult to find because it was filed in way that was inconsistent with how land records are typically indexed and cross referenced by the Sevier County land recorder. Instead of being filed under the homeowners name it was filed under Sebring the alleged lender. Additionally the record had no book or page number in the computer system or on the face of the record. So far only one other record has been found to be improperly filed and cross referenced like this assignment in the Sevier County land records. Further discovery might uncover a motive for this and the party or parties responsible. This assignment was allegedly executed on November 11, 2002 and it alleges that Sebring does hereby grant, bargain, assign and transfer to grantee or assignee: JPMortgage Chase as Trustee, c/o Residential Funding Corporation, 2255 North Ontario, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3190. Many problems exist with this assignment. First a trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to specific property, to which the trustee holds the legal title for the benefit of one or more persons, who hold equitable title as beneficiaries. Here the equitable title is allegedly being assigned to JPMortgage Chase as Trustee. Equitable title cannot be assigned to a trustee.
Page 31 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Second, Michael T. Bates was the trustee named on the DOT executed on November 7, 2002 and filed with Sevier County on November 13, 2002. No substitution of Trustee was filed during the three days between execution date of the DOT and the execution date of this alleged assignment. Tennessee is a three party State, so how can JPMorgan Chase Bank be the trustee in an assignment allegedly executed on November 11, 2002 while Michael T. Bates is also named the trustee? This would mean two trustees; i.e. four parties not three. Third, the assignment is made to Chase c/o Residential Funding Corporation. The meaning of c/o is unclear here, but it appears to imply that Chase is receiving in behalf of RFC. We know from the securitization audit that RFC was the Master Servicer for the Trust. Equitable title cannot be assigned to a servicer anymore than it can be assigned to the trustee. Fourth, typically when c/o is used in mail; i.e. a letter is addressed to John Doe c/o Peter Paul it means that the letter is for John Doe and will be given to John Doe by Peter Paul in trust. This would mean that RFC is not the beneficiary or the party of interest to receive the equitable title; but the go-between for some un-named party. This is not a legal assignment of a DOT. (see Exhibit C on page 51 of 51) Remember that the Trust data shows RFC as the loan originator which is conclusively false, because Sebring was the originator. Additionally a break in the chain of trustee exists. For the first foreclosure attempt on my property in 2009 a substitute of trustee document was filed with my county that named Patrick Taggart as substituting Michael T. Bates. Remember in 2002 there were two trustees named simultaneously, Michael T. Bates and JPMorgan Chase. Then for the foreclosure attempt in 2011 a substitute of trustee document was filed with my county that substituted Michael T. Bates with Shapiro and Kirsch; leaving JPMorgan Chase and Patrick Taggart as continuing trustees; five parties in a three party State.
Page 32 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Gayna Yeager signature is a forgery on this assignment The alleged signature of Gayna Yeager is on this assignment is a forgery. The variation of her signature on this alleged assignment is inconsistent with Gayna Yeagers official signature and with her signature on the alleged original Note that LNV produced as Exhibit A to their Complaint. Amy Marie Bean signature is a forgery on this assignment The signature of Amy Marie Bean as the Notary commissioned in Texas is also inconsistent with her official signature on file with the Texas Secretary of State. False Assignment filed 8/06/2008 An alleged Corporation Assignment of DOT was filed with Sevier County on August 6, 2008 and alleges that The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee, Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact 2255 North Ontario, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3190 the undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to: Residential Funding Company LLC, 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55437 all beneficial interest under certain Deed of Trust Many problems with this alleged assignment exist. First Residential Funding Company LLC is assigning the DOT from itself to itself. Second, this assignment is signed by Christine Renner simultaneously as Assistant Vice President of four different companies and is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. Thirdly, in the lower left corner of this assignment it states: Prepared by MGC Mortgage. MGC Mortgage was not incorporated until January 1, 2008. Fourthly:
Page 33 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Christine Renner signature is a false signature Christine Renner signed similar land records as the Vice President of Deutshe Bank Trust Company Americas fka Bankers Trust Company as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact. (see Exhibit B on pages 49 and 50 of 51) Christine Renner cannot at the same time be the Vice President of: 1. The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. etc as per the assignment pertaining to my DOT and, 2. Deutshe Bank Trust Company Americas fka Bankers Trust Company etc as per the Pottawattamie County Iowa assignment. False Assignment filed 8/06/2008 An alleged Corporation Assignment of DOT was filed with Sevier County on August 6, 2008 that purports For value received Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation the undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to: LNV Corporation, 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano Texas 75024. (Notice this is the same address as MGC for the empty lot.) This assignment was allegedly executed on August 10, 2008. However LNV Corporation was not incorporated in Nevada until August 17, 2008. According the Nevada Secretary of State, Nevada law specifies that an entity cannot legally do business or enter into transactions prior to its incorporation date. I can produce several witnesses with similar evidence of fraud committed by LNV against them. When this evidence is considered together as a whole it shows a conspiracy to defraud and a pattern of fraud on the part of LNV, MGC, and Beal and his other sham companies. It further shows D. Andrew Beal who is the ultimate owner of LNV and MGC is also a co-conspirator in the crimes of Lorraine Brown who has already been convicted with unnamed co-conspirators for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in favor of
Page 34 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
the United States. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District; United States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.) Excerpted from Lorraine Brown criminal plea of guilt: The manner and means by which Brown, her co-conspirators, and others sought to accomplish the purposes and objectives of the conspiracy included forging and falsifying signatures on the mortgage-related documents that they prepared and filed with property recorders' offices throughout the United States. These documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits, were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received the documents such as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents as genuine. The forged and falsified signatures on the Deed Assignments filed against my property are consistent with the manner and means identified by the United States in their criminal conviction of Brown. These false records were indeed mailed and/or transferred electronically to my county. I am most certainly a victim of the same crimes identified by the United States in their indictment of Lorraine Brown. The United States identified unnamed co-conspirators in their indictment, LNV, MGC, Dovenmuehle, Beal and his other companies and other accomplices are responsible for producing and mailing or electronically transferring these false instruments. A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on defendants as to the facts supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705 (1975))
Page 35 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
CONCLUSION Beal, Beal Bank, Beal Financial, LNV, and Dovenmuehle along with NealMikeLance Corporation, Lorraine Brown, and others, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United States mail and private and commercial interstate carriers, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341. A determination of the ultimate facts pertaining to an assignment from Sebring to either RFC or the Trust is at the heart of this case. LNV cannot have a valid claim against me for breach of contract when: 1. There is question about the enforceability of the contract between the original parties, 2. LNV has no proof a valid or legal assignment of the DOT and Note (i.e. mortgage contract) was ever made from Sebring to RFC. Further complicating the matter is that we know my mortgage was securitized into the Trust between November 7, 2002 and January 1, 2003, the closing date for the Trust. No legal or valid assignment exists between Sebring and the Trust. And by all appearances RFC has made a false and illegal claim of equitable interest in the DOT. 3. LNV cannot prove is has the true original Note; since the one it has produced and submitted to this court is a false fabrication. And it can be deduced from the fact that LNV resorted to producing a false fabrication that LNV does not have the original wet signature Note. 4. The fact that LNV has produced falsified documents and caused them to be filed through the mail and via electronic transmission with the Sevier County land recorder bars LNV from prevailing in a breach of contract because it has unclean hands and because it has committed the crime of fraud.
Page 36 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
COUNT IV Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants Pattern of Criminal Activity Prohibited Under 18 USC Chapter 96 This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 18 U.S.C. 1964. Defendants named in this counter complaint with third party cross defendants are engaged in a regular and systematic course of conduct in Tennessee, and across the United States that included(s) but was and is not limited to: false claims and representations in the origination of mortgage loans; false claims and representations regarding mortgage loan costs; false claims and representations regarding Libor and mortgage rates; false claims and representations regarding mortgage loan defaults; false claims and representations regarding mortgage securitizations; false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real property; the institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection, through one or more agents including but not limited to the named and yet unknown and unnamed defendants of monies allegedly owed on secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States, including this Court, through false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of non-judicial foreclosure actions which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a pattern of criminal activity. The actions and course of conduct of Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint were executed, as to me, in the same manner and means (fraudulent misrepresentations in the origination of mortgages); (fraudulent misrepresentations in the securitization of mortgages); (fraudulent misrepresentations in documents filed in courts, public records, and through the mails); with the same
Case 3:12-cv-468
motive (to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same intended class of victims (owners of real property) and the same intended consequences (wrongfully foreclosing on real property), pursuant to a well-planned and orchestrated scheme to defraud which was executed on a national scale throughout the United States through the institution of fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations of foreclosure laws in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions, resulting in a nationalized fraud which has resulted in damages to me and to hundreds of thousands of other homeowners in Tennessee and in other States. This pattern of fraudulent origination of mortgages, fraudulent securitization of mortgages, insurance fraud, servicing fraud, filing false declarations in foreclosures for purposes of manufacturing legal standing and causing the execution of false and fraudulent Assignments of mortgages and DOTs and failure to provide proof of legal ownership of the full and unencumbered interest in the Note and Mortgage to further fraudulent foreclosures nationwide is consistent with defendants pattern of criminal activity prohibited under 18 USC Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS; 18 USC 1962 - Prohibited activities. At all times material hereto, the Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint had actual knowledge that their written statements as to alleged ownership of my mortgage loan and the legal entitlement to demand monies from me and which they used to institute foreclosure proceedings were false statements of material fact which were false when made and known by said Third-Party Defendants to be false when made. Third-Party Defendants made the subject false statements with the specific intent that I and the courts would rely thereon and with the separate specific intent, which separate specific intent was unknown to me at the time, to defraud me.
Page 38 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Not being in the mortgage lending or mortgage loan acquisition businesses, I reasonably relied upon the written statements of Third-Party Defendants and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying monies to said Third-Party Defendants when demanded thereby. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of these Third-Party Defendants, I have suffered damages and personal injury. The fraudulent conduct engaged in by the Third-Party Defendants constitutes a separate and independent tort separate and apart from any breach of any contract. Third-Party Defendants CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD includes, but is not limited to: At all times material hereto, these Third-Party Defendants agreed, between and among themselves and in combination with each other and various agents identified herein, as to each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and enterprise, to engage in unlawful actions for a common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon me and others through fraudulent mortgage origination practices, through fraudulent mortgage securitization practices, through fraudulent mortgage servicing practices, through fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure filings whereby the Defendants would obtain the use and benefit, under fraudulent pretenses, of my real property at my expense and without compensating me therefore; to unlawfully convert my real property and permanently deprive me thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of these Third-Party Defendants actions to be saddled upon me, which consequences include but are not limited to the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses; personal injury; and the adverse effects of claimed defaults and foreclosures placed on my credit report. 18 USC 1962 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person: 1) who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of
Page 39 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise. 2) through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property; 3) employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity; 4) to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2), or (3).
All Third-Party Defendants here named have engaged in racketeering activity as defined by 18 USC 1961. As set forth above, these Third-Party Defendants intentionally manufactured a scheme to defraud homeowners on a nationalized level whereby these Third-Party Defendants, through the use of the mails, the public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and fraudulent documents relating to the claimed and alleged ownership and holder status of mortgage loans when these Third-Party Defendants had actual knowledge that they had no such status, doing so through perjured documents and material misrepresentations with the specific intent to commit theft of residential real property. As set forth above, I relied upon these Third-Party Defendants representations (as any reasonably and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and proximately caused me to suffer specific damages and personal injury. The actions of these Third-Party Defendants were specifically directed to the named Third-Party Plaintiff herein. In order to accomplish their objective, these Third-Party Defendants developed and were part of an enterprise, which consisted of these Third-Party Defendants and their agents including but not limited to
Case 3:12-cv-468
various law Firms and Trustee Sale companies, which worked together and in concert at the direction of the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the pattern of criminal activity set forth herein, including notary fraud and a regular pattern and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public records to institute and further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners. 18 USC Chapter 96 defines pattern of criminal activity as engaging in at least two incidents of criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of criminal activity. As set forth herein, the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by these Third-Party Defendants did not arise out of a single contract or transaction, and in fact involved numerous contracts and transactions which spread across the United States, including those pertaining to the Third-Party Plaintiff identified herein. As set forth herein, the Third-Party Defendants, through their predicate acts and pattern of criminal activity which these Third-Party Defendants engaged in throughout the United States on a regular and continuous basis and with a defined and intentional purpose, conducted a nationalized fraud, the victims of which were the American homeowner including the Third-Party Plaintiff herein. As further set forth herein, these RICO Defendants who were employed by and associated with the enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity including but not limited to a nationalized pattern of filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting false and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with applicable foreclosure laws. As set forth hereinabove and hereinbelow, these RICO Defendants also conspired and endeavored to violate the activities prohibited by 18 USC 1961 sections (1), (2), and (3).
Page 41 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
These RICO Defendants specifically engaged in their pattern of criminal activity at my expense and for their own benefit. As a direct and proximate result of the overt, concerted, and conspiratorial actions of the here named Third-Party Defendants through and with their agents, I have suffered significant pecuniary loss, personal injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and substantial mental distress by reason of these RICO Defendants numerous violations of Federal and State laws regulating fraud, racketeering, theft, forgery, perjury, bribery, graft and corruption with intent of defrauding me of my money and my property. As set forth above, I am thus entitled to demand and does demand threefold actual damages against the RICO Defendants. COUNT V Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. I was targeted for property appraisal fraud, loan origination fraud, a highly predatory loan, fraudulent loan padding, securitization fraud and other misrepresentations and omissions of material fact that I relied upon to my detriment; and that those here named knew to be false and had made with intent to deceive me and with motive of unjust enrichment. I was targeted for such fraud because I met certain criteria, including but not limited to: a. I am a female head-of-household and the sole signer on her mortgage. b. I was new to the area and desperate to get my children settled into a home so they could begin school and I could focus on my new job. This criterion was used by defendants to target minorities and other vulnerable consumer groups (including female head of households) for highly predatory mortgage loans and for other financial fraud.
Page 42 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
There is no legal definition of subprime loan, although the federal government has provided guidance on how to identify subprime loans. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) required mortgage lenders to disclose certain information about each mortgage loan originated or purchased in a fiscal year. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board, since 2004 the HMDA data has included a designation for high-cost loans. Indentifying certain loans as high-cost operates as a proxy for identifying subprime loans. A high-cost loan is defined as a first-lien loan with an annual percentage rate and borrowing costs that exceed by more than 3 percentage points Treasury securities of comparable maturity. Although the distinction between prime and subprime lending ostensibly tracks differences in a borrower's creditworthiness, in fact many lenders and brokers simply tried to maximize the share of loans they originated on subprime terms. One analysis conducted for the Wall Street Journal found that, in 2005, 55% of subprime mortgages were given to borrowers with sufficiently high credit scores to qualify for prime loans. See Rick Brooks & Ruth Simon, Subprime Debacle Traps Even Very Credit-Worthy, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2007, at A1. Not all subprime loans are predatory, but nearly all predatory loans are subprime. Most fundamentally, predatory loans place a borrower at an elevated risk of default or foreclosure. The interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending enumerates certain tactics that may indicate predatory lending. Nonprofit groups have also published widely accepted guidance on the kinds of practices that may constitute predatory lending. See, e.g., NATL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COAL., THE BROKEN CREDIT SYSTEM: DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUAL ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE LOANS BY RACE AND AGE 4 (2004). Like the Combined-Risk Loan at issue in this complaint, predatory loans typically combine risky loan features, thereby placing the borrower at an excessive risk of default and foreclosure.
Page 43 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
For purposes of this complaint, "Combined-Risk Loans" are loans that meet the definition of highcost loan under the HMDA and also contain two or more of the following high-risk terms: (a) the loan was issued based upon stated income, rather that the verified income, of the borrower; (b) the debt-to-income ratio exceeds 55%; (c) the loan-to-value ratio is at least 90%; (d) the loan has an adjustable interest rate; (e) the loan has interest only payment features; (f) the loan has negative loan amortization features; (g) the loan has balloon payment features; and/or (h) the loan imposes prepayment penalties. Individually these loan features make loans riskier and costlier to the borrower. When multiple such features are layered within the same loan, the riskiness and the costliness of the loans increase dramatically. The age and gender disparities giving rise to this action/cause were a direct consequence of the Trusts policies for securitizing Sebring loans. Joyce Lingers and Sebrings intensive focus on originating subprime loans classified as high-cost under HMDA was a result of higher fees offered by the Trusts for such loans. Because its receipt of fees had little or no connection to how securities performed, and because it saw financial advantages for itself in buying and packaging Combined-Risk Loans in particular, the Trust, focused heavily on increasing the volume of Combined-Risk Loans it purchased. The predominant standard for loan quality for Sebring and other loan originators like them, became whether the loans they originated could be initially sold or securitized in the secondary market. The Trust understood the key role that securitization played in shaping the practices of lenders like Sebring. During the time period when my loan was originated, the Trust required Sebring, as a condition of the companies lucrative business relationship, to issue large volumes of Combined-Risk Loans. The high risk features of these loans increased the costs of the loans for borrowers and placed them at greater risk of default, delinquency, and foreclosure. These Third Party Defendants aggressive development of these loan pools disproportionally impacted minorities, female head-of-households, the disabled and seniors over the age of 50 who were more
Case 3:12-cv-468
likely to receive these categorically harmful loans than other borrowers. As a result, I faced a greater risk of default and foreclosure. The racial, gender and age disparities giving rise to this action were a direct consequence of the Trusts policies for securitizing loans originated by the Lingers and Sebring and other subprime lenders. Defendants policies and practices have resulted in considerable racial, gender and age disparities. I seek, through this action, to obtain injunctive relief preventing these Third-Party Defendants from engaging in this discriminatory conduct in the future. I also seek to disgorge unjust enrichment these Third-Party Defendants derived from its discriminatory conduct and to remedy economic harms suffered as a result of the policies challenged in this lawsuit. These Third-Party Defendants discrimination violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ("FHA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ("ECOA"). This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the FHA and ECOA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 42 U.S.C. 3613(a)(1)(A), and 15 U.S.C. 1691e(f). Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. FURTHERMORE; I am filing this complaint pro-se because I have no choice. I do so at a horrific disadvantage, but I am helpless to do otherwise.
Page 45 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
According to The National Center for State Courts, courts are continuing to see an increase in the numbers of litigants who represent themselves and statistics regarding pro-se litigants are very disturbing for those who know the issues regarding the courts and legal counsel in this country. Slightly over 88% of judges surveyed believed that the extent to which litigants committed procedural errors was a problem for pro se litigation. Studies of the trends in pro-se litigants show that the vast majority of them have modest incomes. Source: the website for The National Center for State Courts: http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/memos/prosestatsmemo.htm These cases are all very complex; made so deliberately by the criminal activities of the defendants with intent to thwart consumers ability to seek legal redress and to prevent them from prevailing whenever they do. Even trained attorneys struggle to adequately represent their clients rights in such cases; yet pro-se litigants must take on these very complex cases without training in the law and without confidence in their ability to adequately present their case or follow expected procedures. Therefore, my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States are violated by the named Third-Party Defendants in this complaint. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because these Third-Party Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district.
Page 46 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Gebhardt prays for relief as follows: 1. That the Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this action; 2. That a judgment be entered against LNV and the other Third-Party Defendants in favor of Gebhardt for injunctive relief and declaratory relief, and for equitable monetary relief in the nature of disgorgement, in amounts to be determined at trial; 3. That the Court award damages for tortious injury and personal injury and other equitable relief to Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial; 4. That the Court award actual damages to Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial; 5. That the Court awards threefold actual damages to Plaintiff, as per the RICO Statutes. 6. That the court appoint a pro-bono counsel(s) to assist Gebhardt in discovery and at trial; 7. That the Court order Defendants to pay Gebhardts litigation costs. 8. That the Court award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable by law; and 9. That the Court grant for all other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary, appropriate and which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances. Plaintiff requests a jury on the claims so triable.
________________________________________ Catherine Gebhardt
Page 47 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Exhibit A
This is page 6 of 9 from LNVs Exhibit A attached to their Complaint. LNV alleges Gebhardt signed an Addendum to the original Adjustable Rate Rider. The alleged Gebhardt signature is not dated and this page is not numbered. Nothing associates this alleged signature page with the alleged Adjustable Rate Rider or the alleged Addendum it allegedly approved.
It appears Gebhardts signature has been electronically lifted and placed onto the page. Had the printer ink streak occurred when this page was printed or if it was on the page when the signature was made then there would not be white space between the edges of the letters. See close-up below.
Notice the white spaces this can only occur on a PhotoShopped fabrication; i.e. an electronically lifted image of a signature that was placed on top of the ink streak. This would be an impossible on an original wet signature as LNV claims this is.
Page 48 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
EXHIBIT B - page 1
This instrument allegedly assigns equitable interest from RFC to RFC. Why would RFC need to execute an assignment to itself?
Gebhardt assignment Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company NA, as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact This instrument is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. This is not possible since the Trust databases show that the Gebhardt loan was not paid off in the Trust until July 2007.
MGC Mortgage is the preparer of this instrument that was allegedly executed on May 30, 2007 when MGC was not incorporated until January 1, 2008.
Page 49 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
EXHIBIT B - page 2
In this Pottawattamie County assignment Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of Deutsche Bank Trust Company America fka Bankers Trust Company, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact In the Gebhardt land record she is VP of two companies between these two instruments it appears that Christine Renner is VP of four companies at the same time. This instrument is allegedly executed on March 22, 2007 barely two months before the Gebhardt assignment was allegedly executed.
Page 50 of 51
Case 3:12-cv-468
Exhibit C
This assignment is a false instrument for the following reasons: The DOT was executed on 11/7/02 and filed on 11/13/02 the Trustee named on the DOT is Michael T. Bates. This assignment alleges that JPMorgan Chase Bank is the Trustee. No Substitution of Trustee had been filed between the execution dates of these two instruments, and it is not legally possible for there to be two trustees. It is unclear who is actually being assigned the equitable interest in the DOT. Chase is the trustee and equitable title cannot be assigned to the trustee. The use of c/o RFC means that RFC is an agent in behalf of some unnamed entity and RFC is entrusted to deliver to this party. This is not a legal assignment of equitable title in property. RFC is named as the Servicer for the Trust in which the Gebhardt loan was securitized. Equitable title cannot legally be assigned to a Servicer. Additionally the signature of Gayna Yeager is a forgery.
Page 51 of 51

Gebhardt's Counter and Thrid Party Complaint Against LNV Corporation and D. Andrew Beal and Others

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gebhardt's Counter and Thrid Party Complaint Against LNV Corporation and D. Andrew Beal and Others

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:12-cv-468

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS Defendant No. 1

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation, et al Name: _________________________________________________________

6000 Legacy Drive Street Address: ______________________________________________

Beal Financial Corporation Name: _________________________________________________________

Joyce Linger Name: _________________________________________________________ Telephone No. _______________________________________________ 304-519-5225

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

Case 3:12-cv-468 Defendant No. 9

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT CROSS CLAIM

LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

Joyce Linger Name: ___________ Telephone No. _ 304-519-5225