Facts and Issues (Contd)

other evidence presented to the trial court indicated the assignment of mortgage was
prepared by a known robo-signer and was likely willfully fraudulent; the endorsement
on the subject note being undated raised a question of standing as to whether or not
the Appellee was assigned the mortgage and in possession of the note at the time of
commencement of the action.

With the above material issues of fact in dispute the trail court granted the Appellee
summary judgment.

- said to have occurred between First Franklin Financial and Oak Capital Trust. An
original Certificate of Good Standing signed by the Delaware Secretary of State was
presented to the trial court that indicated a break in the chain of assignments and
extrinsic fraud in the assignment of mortgage.

The Certificate of Good Standing indicated that Appellees assignor Oak Capital Trust
was created on December 16, 2010, and the assignment of mortgage from the original
lender to Oak Capital Trust was allegedly executed on October 05, 2010-over two
months before Oak Capital was created; thus Appellant argued that Appellee was not
the real party in interest and had no standing to commence foreclosure because Oak
Capital Trust could not assign to the Appellee what it could not own because its did yet
exist at the time of the alleged assignment.

Based on the Certificate of Good Standing from Delaware, Appellant filed a motion to
strike the assignments of mortgage. The trial court refused to rule on Appellants
motion to strike and then ignored Appellants motion to demand a ruling on her motion
to strike for the purposes of appeal. The Appellant contests the trial court refusal to rule
on Appellants motion to strike.

In support of its motion for summary judgment Appellee cited Stevenson v. Bank of
America, 359 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. App. 2011), misrepresenting its holding, claiming this
Court held that the timing of the mortgage assignment is not relevant in Kentucky any
longer and the trial court erroneously agreed with Appellees reasoning citing the
Stevenson case in granting summary judgment .

Appellant also contested the Courts conclusion that the Appellee was holder of the
note in due course, because the Appellant argued that Appellee admitted in its pleading
and affidavit filed with their summary judgment that Appellee knowingly took
possession of the note with knowledge that it was overdue and had been dishonored.
KRS 355.3-302 (1)(b) 3.
Appellant argued that Appellees assignments of mortgage did not comply with
Kentucky law as no power of attorney was filed with assignments of mortgage. KRS
382.370.

Appellant Steven Blanton argued against being made a Defendant in the foreclosure
action inasmuch as the Appellee had no lien against him and he did not owe anything to
the Appellee. Appellant Blanton did not sign the mortgage or the promissory note.
Appellant Blanton argued he still holds a statutory inchoate curtesy interest to of the
subject real estate KRS 392.020. The trial courts final order makes no mention of
Appellant Blantons inchoate curtesy interest and otherwise effectively allows his wifes
creditors to seize and sell this interest without his consent, all contrary to due process
of law and the ancient and revered real property laws of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.

Issues proposed to be raised on appeal (Contd)

3. The trial court erred in determining Appellee was the holder of the note in due because
that Appellee knowingly took possession of the note with knowledge that it was
overdue and had been dishonored.

4. The trial court erred in accepting an assignment of mortgage allegedly made under
power of attorney, when no power of attorney was filed with assignment.

5. The trial court erred when it ordered Appellant Blanton to be joined in the cause of
action when did not sign the mortgage or the promissory note and thereby allowing his
wifes creditors to seize and sell his inchoate curtesy interest, without due process of
law.