1.

This is a tragic case of fraudulent financial elder abuse and predatory lending practices that resulted in the theft of the home of plaintiff-- a self-made African-American nurse for thirty years while mothering a large family -- her dispossession of everything she worked her entire life to achieve, who is now physically and emotionally broken by her losses. This lawsuit is her only chance to obtain justice and recompense for her financial, emotional, and physical sufferings. Almost all funds received from this loan were lost due to other predatory elder abuse lenders taking advantage of her while she was trying to make a retirement home for her to live with her children. 2. Plaintiff Donella Dennis is, and at all times mentioned herein was an individual residing in Inglewood, California who was more than 72 years old, blind in one eye and unable to see well enough to read or to understand the loan papers and related documents presented to her by AHM and signed by her only by AHM's agent pointing at the place on the documents for her sign. 3. Plaintiff Donella Dennis was/is the owner of real property described as Unit 126, 620 Hyde Park Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90302. She worked 30 years as a nurse while raising a large family in order to purchase this home which was her only valuable asset and hedge against retirement. She had no retirement benefits and lived on Social Security. 4. Plaintiff Donella Dennis was born June 10, 1934 and at 77 years old fits the definition of "elder" contained in Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.27: "Elder means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older." 5. Defendant American Home Mortgage ("AHM") was a Delaware Corporation that originated Plaintiff's mortgage loan on or about 2/5/2007. 6. Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") was formerly known as Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association and changed its name in 2002. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company operates as a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation. 7. . Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 20, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that each of those defendants was in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and for plaintiff's injuries and damages. The
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 1 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

names, capacities and relationships of DOES 1 through 20 will be alleged by amendment to this complaint when they are known. 8. Defendants sued herein are contractually, strictly, negligently, intentionally, vicariously liable

and or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for each and every act, omission, obligation, event or happening set forth in this Complaint, and that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is indebted to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. 9. The use of the term "Defendant" in any of the allegations in this Complaint, unless specifically otherwise set forth, is intended to include and charge both jointly and severally, not only named Defendant, but all Defendants. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were agents, servants, employees, alter egos, superiors, successors in interest, joint ventures and/or co-conspirators of each of each other and their divisions and subsidiaries and in doing the things herein after mentioned, or acting within the course and scope of their authority of such agents. servants, employees, alter egos, superiors, successors in interest, joint ventures and or coconspirators with the permission and consent of their co-defendants and, consequently, each Defendants named herein, inclusive, are jointly and severely liable to Plaintiff for the damages and harm sustained as a result of their wrongful conduct. Defendants, and each of them and their divisions and/or subsidiaries, aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to the other in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff, as alleged herein. In taking action, as alleged herein, to aid and abet and substantially assist the commissions of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of, each of the Defendants acted with an awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing. 11. Defendants, and each division and subsidiary thereof, knowingly and willfully conspired, engaged in a common enterprise, and engaged in a common course of conduct to accomplish the wrongs complained of herein. The purpose and effect of the conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct complained of was, inter alia, to financially benefit Defendants at the expense of Plaintiff by engaging in elder abuse and predatory lending, and fraudulent activities. Defendants accomplished their conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct by
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 2 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

misrepresenting and concealing material information regarding the origination of loans, and by taking steps and making statements in furtherance of their wrongdoing as specified herein. Each component of Defendants was a direct, necessary and substantial participant in the conspiracy, common enterprise and common course of conduct complained of herein, and was aware of its overall contribution to and furtherance thereof. Defendants wrongful acts include, inter alia, all of the acts that each of its divisions and/or subsidiaries are alleged to have committed in furtherance of the wrongful conduct of complained of herein. 12. Securitized Pooled mortgage loans sold as trusts are referred to as Mortgage Backed Securities ("MBS") or Collaterized Debt Obligations ("CDO"). Each such trust required a trustee sometimes referred to as an Indenture Trustee. Deutsche Bank would commonly name itself as the indenture trustee in the each MBS or CDO it marketed and sold. 13. . There are 5 major groups involved in securitization: originators, depositors, sponsors, master servicers and trustees. 14. . The companies that make the loans, the mortgagee, are known as the ORIGINATORS in the securitization process. 15. . Loan originators normally sold the loans to depositors the very same day that these loans were made or within just a few days of the closing date of the loan. 16. . Loan originators like AHM did not lend their own money to the homeowner/borrower. The originators were often financed by warehouse lenders. These warehouse lenders were financial institution that extended a line of credit to the originator to fund a mortgage. The loan typically lasted from the time it was originated until it was sold into the securitization market. db was one of AHM's warehouse lenders. 17. Weeks after funding this loan was pooled with other AHM loans and marketed and sold by Deutsche Bank in 2007 as the MBS named American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1 and Deutsche Bank was the trustee of the MBS named as Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 3 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

18. The trustee in an asset-backed securities transaction may perform various functions, including serving as indenture trustee, authenticating agent, issuing and paying agent, securities registrar and transfer agent and calculation agent with respect to the securities, custodian of the assets (on behalf of the issuer), analytic provider and back-up servicer. Trustee as used herein, unless otherwise specified, includes all such roles performed by the trustee in an asset-backed securities transaction (but not the role of servicer, back-up servicer or master servicer). 19. Although the trustee is the legal owner of record of the mortgage loans, the trustee does not own the loans for its own account or have an economic interest in the loans. The beneficial owners of these mortgage loans are investors in the MBS securities, who typically are large institutions such as public and private pension funds, mutual funds and insurance companies. Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee had no beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust when it acted to foreclose on Plaintiffs' home by substituting in Power Default Services, Inc. as Trustee 02/24/2011. 20. Deutsche Bank was a major player in the MBS and CDO markets at the time this loan was funded and was a prime mover in developing these markets 21. AHM was one of the three largest mortgage originators in 2006-2007 and many of its loans including this loan were funded by AHM with funds provided by Deutsche Bank and then assigned or transferred to Deutsche Bank to be placed in a pool of loans to be sold to investors as an MBS or CDOs 22. The vast majority of all the MBS trusts were created between 2004 and 2008 23. Deutsche Bank made millions or billions of dollars in putting loans into the MBS and CDO markets. 24. AHM and Deutsche Bank had agreements that some of AHM's loans would be directly or indirectly given to Deutsche Bank after funding to ultimately be pooled into MBS or CDO controlled and sold by Deutsche Bank . 25. In February 2007, Deutsche Bank was the largest or one of the largest providers of funds to AHM to fund its loans
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 4 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

26. DEUTSCHE BANK provided all or part of the monies to AHM to fund this loan and the loan was originated by AHM for Deutsche Bank. 27. AHM was acting as the agent of Deutsche Bank in funding this loan 28. The beneficial interest in this loan was transferred or assigned to Deutsche Bank or an entity controlled by Deutsche Bank and then to the beneficiaries of an MBS or CDO shortly after funding. 29. Deutsche Bank acquired the original loan file or a copy thereof or control thereof soon after funding and knew or should have known that the loan was predatory. 30. Prior to the funding of this loan, Deutsche Bank was well aware that AHM had severe financial problems and would fund even worse loans than previously in order to stay afloat. 31. After acquiring the beneficial interest or rights thereto in this loan, Deutsche Bank sold it along with other AHM loans to the investors in the MBS or CDO named as American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1. 32. Deutsche Bank pooled this loan with others and established the MBS by 3-30-07 and filed the required form 8-K with the SEC in the next month. Deutsche Bank represented to the world including the SEC and prospective purchasers that it obtained and reviewed the loan file for proper underwriting standards including the borrowers ability to repay the loan. DEUTSCHE BANK should not now be allowed to claim that it was unaware that this loan was a predatory loan and constituted elder abuse. In addition, because Deutsche Bank was filing lawsuits against originators for bad loans and demanding from its originating agents that it buy back or replace bad loans - it cannot claim that Deutsche Bank was not reviewing the loan files and this loan file. 33. Prior to the funding of this loan, Deutsche Bank was well aware that the quality of the AHM loans it was acquiring for sale into the MBS and CDO markets was extremely poor. 34. Prior to the funding of this loan, Deutsche Bank knew or should have known that its agent AHM was making predatory loans and loans where the borrower had no means to repay the loan.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 5 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

35. Deutsche Bank was so sure that loans acquired from AHM and other agent brokers were so bad that it and its traders made millions of dollars in shorting the marketed loans and started this practice prior to 2007. 36. . Many of the people now responsible for investigating the creation and operation of trusts were previously involved in the creation and operation of these trusts. Example: Robert Khuzami, Director of Enforcement for the SEC, was previously General Counsel for the Americas for Deutsche Bank from 2004-2009. Khuzami thus supervised Greg Lippman, a senior trader at Deutsche, who helped create and fuel the market for mortgage-backed securities. 37. Greg Lippman was perhaps the most famous of all traders who made tens of millions of dollars betting AGAINST the continued strong performance of the MBS securities and the U.S. housing market. He has been singled out for his misconduct in Congressional reports. He is known for being brash, crass and unscrupulous. 38. Deutsche Bank was well aware that AHM and others were originating predatory loans and loans that were unlikely to be paid - for instance, senior traders at the bank described the MBS securities they were peddling to clients as "crap," "pigs," and "generally horrible". 39. The senior trader, Greg Lippman, allegedly wrote, "DOESN'T THIS DEAL BLOW" in an email to a colleague about an offering. 40. In another e-mail to a hedge fund investor, Lippman allegedly disclosed a $1 billion short position on mortgage-backed securities that was going to make him "oceans of money." (That Lippman e-mail is from 2005). 41. By November 2011, A study of 37 trusts from three popular series of trusts, American Home Mortgage Assets Trusts, American Home Mortgage Investment Trusts and Soundview Home Loan Trusts, showed the following extremely high default rate of the AHM MBS pools:1

Of the 37 trusts, 18 had 25% or less of performing loans remaining.

2. Of the 37 trusts, 8 had 26% - 30% of performing loans remaining. 3. Of the 37 trusts, 11 had 31% - 38% of performing loans remaining.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 6 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

42. In August 2007 Deutsche Bank 's suspicions about the poor quality of AHM loans came true when AHM filed bankruptcy and stopped funding loans. 43. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. ("AHMSI") purchased the servicing rights of AHM in the AHM bankruptcy proceeding in 2007 and became the servicer for Deutsche Bank MBS pools. 44. Deutsche Bank was the largest or one of the largest bankruptcy creditors of AHM based on funds provided to fund loans and loans already funded. 45. Deutsche Bank 's predictions that shorting of the MBS and CDO market including some of its own MBS and CDO not only made it and its traders millions when it did short those markets, but eventually was proven to be absolutely true and accurate when the MBS and CDO crisis started the current recession which was signaled by the AHM bankruptcy just 6 months after this loan funded and the failure and and/or bankruptcy of all the other major loan originators. 46. Many of the law firms representing trustees such as Deutsche Bank have been faulted for unscrupulous practices in various courts including falsifying evidence and committing "fraud on the court" 47. Deutsche Bank has previously been faulted along with its attorneys for such behavior.

4. There were a combined total of 228,203 loans in these trusts at inception. 5. As of November, 2011, there were a combined total of 51,798 (22.7%) performing loans in these trusts. 6. The combined collateral value of the loans in these trusts at inception was over $61 Billion: $61,441,128,225. 7. Of the 37 trusts, Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT5 had the highest percentage of performing loans remaining in the trust: 38%. American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2005-2 had the lowest percentage of performing loans remaining in the trust: 10.5%.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 7 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

48. In this case Deutsche Bank 's attorneys have tried to commit a fraud on the court by misrepresenting to the court that Deutsche Bank had no interest in the loan until it was assigned to Deutsche Bank in 2011. "And judicially noticeable facts also clearly demonstrate that DEUTSCHE BANK was not assigned any interest in the loan until February 23, 2011, four (4) years after loan origination." [Demurrer to complaint] " Similarly, DEUTSCHE BANK was not assigned any interest in Plaintiffs loan until February 23, 2011, four (4) years after loan origination. [RJN, Exhibit "3"]. As such, it is equally factually impossible for DEUTSCHE BANK to have engaged in any fraudulent conduct or concealment during the loan's origination because DEUTSCHE BANK had no interest or involvement with the loan/DOT until four (4) years later. Third, even if Defendants were involved with the origination of Plaintiffs loan (which they were not as demonstrated above)" [Demurrer to complaint] 49. This cannot be merely a mistake by Deutsche Bank 's attorneys since they are clearly aware that Deutsche Bank became the trustee of this MBS in within two months of its funding 2007. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court which they may have thought they could get away with because plaintiff is 77 years old and in pro per. 50. Not only is it obvious that Deutsche Bank acquired this loan in 2007 and placed it in a pool to market as 2007-1, but Deutsche Bank specifically asked the AHM bankruptcy court in the fall of 2007 to order AHM to turn over the original loan files for all loans in the 2007-1 pool 51. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by the Defendant's continuing, knowing, and active concealment of the facts regarding elder abuse, predatory lending and Deutsche Bank's involvement in the loan as alleged herein. Despite exercising reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was prevented from discovering, the wrongdoing complained of herein. 52. In the alternative, Defendants should be stopped from relying on any statutes of limitations. Defendants have been under a continuing duty to disclose the true character, nature, and quality of their financial services and debt collection practices. Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure, but knowingly failed to honor and discharge such duty. Even now

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 8 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

Deutsche Bank is still trying to conceal its involvement in this loan by committing fraud on the court by claiming it had no involvement until 2011.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE AND DEPENDENT ADULT CIVIL PROTECTION ACT (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
53. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52, hereinabove, as if set forth in full herein. 54. In 1991, the California Legislature enacted the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the "Elder Abuse Act"), codified at California Welfare & Institutions Code 15600 et seq. In enacting the Elder Abuse Act, the California Legislature expressly recognized that elders (defined as a person greater than the age of 65) are particularly subjected to financial abuse and fraud, and other forms of neglect and harm, and that the State has a distinct responsibility to protect them. In its preamble, the Elder Abuse Act expressly states that the Legislature "desires to direct special attention to the needs and problems of elderly persons, recognizing that these persons constitute a significant and identifiable segment of the population and that they are more subject to risks of abuse, neglect, and abandonment." (See Elder Abuse Act 15600). It was the express intent of the Legislature in enacting the Elder Abuse Act to provide incentives through enhanced civil remedies to redress the reckless acts and/or omissions within the Act's ambit that are perpetrated against our elders, noting: "The Legislature further finds and declares that infirm elderly persons and dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, that cases of abuse of these persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters, and few civil cases are brought in connection with this abuse due to problems of proof, court delays, and the lack of incentives to prosecute these suits.... It is the further intent of the Legislature in adding Article 8.5 (commencing with 15657) to this chapter to enable interested persons to engage attorneys to take up the cause of abused elderly persons and dependent adults." (Ibid.) 55. At the time AHM's fraudulent loan transaction was consummated in February 2007, Donella Dennis was a senior citizen aged 73 years. Donella Dennis was, therefore, an "elder" within the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE, 9 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

meaning of the California Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act (the "Elder Abuse Law"), at California Welfare & Institutions Code 15610.27. 56. Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.07 provides that "[a}buse of an elder" means - financial abuse.. . or other treatment.. . with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering." 57. Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30(a) states that "Financial abuse' of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: (1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both." 58. Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30(b) states that "A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates or retains possession of property in bad faith." 59. Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30(b)(l) states that "A person or entity shall be deemed to have acted in bad faith if the person or entity knew or should have known that the elder or dependent adult had the right to have the property transferred or made readily available to the elder or dependent adult or to his or her representative." 60. Welfare and Institutions Code l5610.30(b)(2) states that "[for purposes of this section, a person or entity should have known of a right specified in paragraph (1) if, on the basis of the information received by the person or entity or the person or entity' s authorized third party, or both, it is obvious to a reasonable person that the elder or dependent adult has a right specified in paragraph (1)." 61. More than 80% of Americans aged 50 and older are homeowners. Elders are often the targets of unscrupulous lenders who pressure them into high-interest rate loans that they may not be able to repay. Older homeowners are often persuaded to borrow money through home equity loans for home repairs, debt consolidation, or to pay health care costs. These loans are sold as "miracle financial cure," and homeowners are devastated to find out they cannot afford to pay off the loans,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,10 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

and as a result, may lose their home. Often these loans are packed with excessive fees, costly credit insurance, pre-payment penalties, and balloon payments. 62. Plaintiff Donella Dennis is 77 years old and in poor health. To begin, Defendants American Home Mortgage an Deutsche Bank directly engaged in financial abuse. Effective during the pertinent events, subdivision (a)(l) of section 15610.30 provided that financial abuse occurs when an entity "takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal property of an elder . . . to [Sic] a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both." (Italics added.) Subdivision (b) of section 15610.30 further provided that "bad faith" was sufficient to satisfy the italicized condition. Defendant American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank knew, or should have known, the 73 year old Plaintiff was in poor health, blind in one eye, and would never live to see her loan paid off in 2037. 63. Defendant American Home Mortgage acting as the agent of Deutsche Bank sold Plaintiff an adjustable rate, 30 year, high-risk mortgage at age 73. Plaintiff did not understand the terms of her mortgage loan and does not have the education or clarity of mind and thought to understand Defendant American Home Mortgage loan. The Plaintiff's loan was securitized and Plaintiff has no understanding whatsoever, or recollection of, the subsequent securitization that occurred on her home during 2007. 64. By engaging in the acts alleged above, Defendants committed directly and aided and abetted elder financial abuse in violation of Welfare & Inst. Code 15610.30(a)(1), in the following respects and instances (among others): a) Both the making and receipt of a loan on the Property owned and occupied by Donella Dennis without her full understanding of the transaction or informed consent constitutes bad faith financial elder abuse. f) Failing to advise plaintiff of her rights in regard to elder abuse and predatory lending or to properly consult with Donella Dennis, who was almost always present on the Property (as she lived there), which would have led any reasonable person to conclude that Donella Dennis, could not possibly make the loan payments on the loan constitutes bad faith financial elder abuse. g) Failing to heed numerous "red flags" and "badges" of fraud when consummating the Loan and foreclosing thereon with respect to the Property that would have been obvious to any reasonable person, and then continuing to ignore them afterwards when evicting Donella Dennis from her home that was stolen from her, when any honest and reasonable person would have taken heed and corrected the manifest injustice that was occurring, constitutes bad faith financial elder abuse. 65. Defendants' conduct, as hereinbefore described, was reckless, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious within the meaning of California Welfare and Institutions Code 15657 et seq. Under
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,11 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

California Civil Code 3294 and California Welfare and Institutions Code 15657.05(a), Defendants I are liable for punitive damages. 66. Under California Welfare and Institutions Code 15657.5 et seq., Defendants are liable for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for investigating and litigating this claim. 67. Under California Civil Code 3345, defendant is liable for treble damages and penalties because: (a) Defendants' knew or were reckless in not knowing that its conduct was directed as to a senior citizen, Donella Dennis; (b) their conduct caused a senior citizen _ Donella Dennis -- to suffer the loss of her home equity thereby depriving Donella Dennis of the assets and income essential to her health and welfare; (c) Donella Dennis, as a senior citizen of limited education, was more vulnerable than others to Defendants' conduct because of their age and limited educational background; and (d) Donella Dennis suffered unspeakable emotional and physical distress resulting from the fraudulent theft and dispossession of the home she had worked her entire life to own, as well as substantial economic damages, resulting from Defendants' conduct. 68. Under California Welfare and Institutions Code ~ 15657 et seq. and 15657.05 et seq., defendant is liable to Donella Dennis for her unendurable pain and suffering resulting from Defendants' intentional and reckless financial elder abuse. 69. California has adopted the common law rule for subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting a tort. Liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person (a) knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act or (b) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the person's own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person. 70. As the Legislature is presumed to be aware of existing judicial decisions when it enacts or amends statutes, the term "assists," as found in section 1 5610.30, subdivision (a)(2), is properly interpreted in light of the rule. Deutsche Bank clearly assisted AHM in making this loan. 71. In originating, funding, and securitizing Plaintiff's mortgage loan to sell as an MBS, Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank stepped way outside the scope of their role as simple mortgage lenders. In all their actions and the eventually the sale of the loan, Defendants American
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,12 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, were anything but conventional lenders. 72. However, these facts and disclosure required were never disclosed to Plaintiff. 73. Defendant American Home Mortgage originated for DEUTSCHE BANK an unfair, disadvantageous, and predatory 30 year adjustable rate loan to the 73 year old Plaintiff, due when Plaintiff was 104 years old. 74. An action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish that at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor's or trustor's part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale. See, Munger v. Moore (1970) Cal.Rptr. 323 (Cal.App.); Spires v. Lawless (1973) 493 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.App.); League City Slate Bank v. Mares (1968) 427 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Civ.App.). Plaintiff had no knowledge of the securitization practices of Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee. Until her home was foreclosed, Plaintiff had never heard of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Plaintiff was subsequently ordered to be evicted by summary judgment motion by Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee. 75. As the Plaintiff's mortgage loan was obtained through undue influence, predatory lending, breach of fiduciary duty and elder abuse, Plaintiffs mortgage loan was an unconscionable contract and not actionable. 76. Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company pressured Plaintiff and used undue influence on the 73 year old on or about February 2007 to put Plaintiff in a 30 year, adjustable rate mortgage that Defendants knew or should have known was unfair, predatory, and disadvantageous. 77. Plaintiff had no income to qualify her for such a loan but Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, took Plaintiffs equity and by pooling it into an MBS insured against the loans failure, thereby incurring no financial risk and acting far outside the scope of "mortgage lender".

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,13 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

78. Said violations of Welfare & Institutions Code 15610.07, 15657.5, 15610.30 by Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, were done with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and malice. As a direct result Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, general, special, and punitive damages in an the amount of $1,000,000.00

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE CALIFORNIA PREDATORY LENDING ACT (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
79. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 78, hereinabove, as if set forth in full herein. 80. In 2001, the California Legislature enacted legislation to combat predatory lending practices that typically occur in the subprime home mortgage market: The California Predatory Lending Act, codified in California Financial Code ~ 4970-4979.8 (Division 1.6). "Predatory lending" is a term generally used to characterize a range of abusive and aggressive lending practices, including deception or fraud, charging excessive fees and exorbitant interest rates; making loans without regard to a borrower's ability to repay; making loans in blighted areas targeting relatively unsophisticated and economically vulnerable individuals, often people of color; lending based on the value of the asset securing the loan rather than a borrower's ability to repay ("equity-stripping," in other words issuing a loan "designed to fail," also called a "loan-to-own"); and profiting by acquiring the property through default, rather than by receiving loan payments all of which occurred here, with tragic results. 81. The Loan that is the subject of this action is a "covered loan' as defined in California Financial Code 4970(b) because: a) The original principal balance of $294,750 does not exceed the most current conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage loan established by the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") at the consummation of the transaction when the Loan was documented and made in February 2007, which was $417,000 according to Fannie Mae's official government website, located at http://www.fanniemae.comlaboutflnlloanlimits.html (see historical loan limits, last visited October 29. 2009. b) Plaintiff is informed and believes that the annual percentage rate on the Loan at the consummation of the transaction exceeded the allowable rate and that the monthly payment relative
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,14 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

to her income exceeded the allowable percentage. c) Plaintiff also is informed and believes that the total points and fees payable under the loan at or before closing exceed six percent of the total loan amount. 82. The Loan that is the subject of this action is a "consumer loan" as defined in California Financial Code 4970(d) because it was a consumer credit transaction secured by real property located in the State of California _ the Property (as defined previously) -- and was improved with a one-to-four residential unit used and occupied by Plaintiff's principal dwelling 83. Defendants willfully and knowingly violated California Financial Code ~ 4973 and 4979.6 in that: 84. a) Defendants originated the Loan without the reasonable belief at the time the Loan was consummated that Plaintiff would be able to make the scheduled payments to repay the obligation based upon a consideration of plaintiffs current and expected income, current obligations, employment status and other financial resources, other than Plaintiffs equity in the dwelling that secured the repayment of the Loan, in violation of California Financial Code 4973(0(1). 85. b) Plaintiff is informed and believes that The Loan includes a prepayment fee or penalty after the first 36 months after the date of consummation of the Loan, in violation of California Financial Code 4973(a)( 1). 86. c) Defendants failed to provide the written disclosure required by Financial Code 4973(k)U). 87. d) Defendants fraudulently attempted to avoid the application of Financial Code occupied by Donella Dennis as her primary residence, in violation of Financial Code 4973(n). 88. Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Donella Dennis was the owner and occupant of the Property, and that if a "covered loan" was to be secured by the Property -- Donella Dennis had to agree to the loan and receive the protections to which consumers receiving covered loans are entitled to obtain under the Predatory Lending Act. In addition, Donella Dennis as the owner and occupant of a residentially-occupied Property which was used as security for a consumer loan, and whose Property was seized from her due to the inability or unwillingness of the borrower to repay the loan -- falls within the class of persons for whose protection the Predatory Lending Act was enacted, as the Act was designed to protect against the very kind of harm which occurred here.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,15 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

89. Alternatively, because Defendants conspired together and aided and abetted each other, as hereinbefore alleged, in order to facilitate and consummate the illicit scheme to defraud Donella Dennis through the intentional evasion of the requirements of the California Predatory Lending Act, Defendants by their own actions have conferred standing on Donella Dennis under the Act. Donella Dennis has standing to assert the civil liability provisions of the Act because Defendants fraudulently stole Donella Dennis's Property by denying her the protections that she would have enjoyed had Defendants complied with the Act's requirements (including making certain that which would have been evident to anyone checking her income and age that she did not have the ability to repay the Loan,, which would have prevented the Loan from being made at all had the Act's proscriptions been followed). In all events, by virtue of the foregoing misconduct, Defendants are estopped from denying Donella Dennis relief under the Act (for alleged lack of standing or otherwise) because it was their concerted fraud that deprived her of her rights under the Act. 90. Pursuant to Financial Code 4978, plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages in the amount of $15,000.00 or actual damages, whichever is greater, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, including without limitation an order or injunction to cancel the Loan.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
91. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 90, hereinabove, as if set forth in full herein. 92. The California Unfair Competition Act, set forth in California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. ("Section 17200"), prohibits acts of unfair competition, which include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice " Section 17200 imposes strict liability for violations and does not require proof that Defendants intended to injure anyone. Section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats those transgressions, when committed as a business activity, as "unlawful" business practices. Thus, the "unlawful" practices prohibited by Section 17200 are any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,16 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

or court-made. Such "unlawful" business practices are independently actionable under Section 17200 and subject to the distinct remedies provided hereunder. 93. Moreover, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17205, Plaintiffs' remedies under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. ate cumulative with remedies under all other statutory and common law remedies available in this State, including all remedies provided under the California Civil Code (including but not limited to Civil Code 3345), the California Financial Code (including but not limited to the Predatory Lending Act), and the California Welfare and Institutions Code (including but not limited to the Elder Abuse Act). 94. Defendants have engaged in "unfair" business practices within the meaning of the Act, Section 17200, in that they have conspired together and aided and abetted one another to steal a senior citizen's home equity based upon fraud, predatory lending, elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duty resulting in her dispossession of her home, the loss of all assets and income to sustain herself and her health and well being, and the infliction of terrible emotional distress and anxiety, resulting in severe physical illness and ultimately death. 95. Defendants have engaged in an "unlawful" business practices within the meaning of Section 17200 by committing mortgage fraud through predatory lending practices designed to financially abuse a senior citizen by stealing her home, and profiting thereby, all in violation of California Civil Code 1710 (deceit), California Welfare & Institutions Code 15600 et seq. (the Elder Abuse Act), California Finance Code 4970 et seq. (the Predatory Lending Act), California Civil Code 1714 (duty to use reasonable care not to injure others), and California Civil Code 1920 (standards for adjusting interest rates in loan agreement must consider borrower's ability to repay loan). 96. Defendants have engaged in "fraudulent" conduct within the meaning of Section 17200 because the public is likely to be deceived by the Defendants' concerted efforts to commit mortgage fraud through predatory lending practices and elder abuse, while presenting to the public a veneer of legitimate business operations. 97. As a result of Defendants' unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct performed in furtherance of the Defendants' efforts to commit mortgage fraud through predatory lending practices and elder abuse, Donella Dennis suffered direct and substantial economic, emotional, and resulting physical harm. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount as yet is
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,17 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

unascertained, which will be determined according to proof at trial, but which includes their illgotten retention of the Property. 98. Defendants' unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices offend established public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and so substantially injurious to consumers that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. 99. By reason of the above-alleged unlawful, immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous acts on Defendants' part, Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of Defendants' ill-gotten gains and other equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code section 17203, in the form of an accounting, restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, earnings, profits, compensation and benefits obtained by Defendants as the result of their aforementioned unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17203, Plaintiffs seek a further order by this Court enjoining Defendants from continuing to conduct business through the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and acts described in this Complaint; and from failing to fully disclose to the true nature of their business practices in this State. 100. Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, were

done with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and malice. As a direct result Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, general, special, and punitive damages in an the amount of $1,000,000.00

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 100, hereinabove, as if set forth in full herein. 102. Defendant AHM's, as Donella Dennis's mortgage broker under the circumstances present

here, gave rise to fiduciary duties of candor and disclosure, care and fidelity. In particular, given Donella Dennis's age and her need for assistance, AHM stood in a position of control and superiority over Donella Dennis, who was vulnerable and needy; and by virtue of the imbalance of power
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,18 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

between them, their familial relationship, and the confidence and trust Donella Dennis reposed in AHM, AHM had affirmative fiduciary responsibilities towards Donella Dennis. As a fiduciary, AHM was required to ensure the information they provided and the material representations they made were not untrue or misleading, and to ensure that they did not omit to state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading. In her dealings with Donella Dennis, AHM was required not to put its personal interests ahead of or in conflict with Donella Dennis, or to use in any way her position of trust for its own personal advantage at the expense of Donella Dennis. 103. By committing mortgage fraud through predatory lending practices designed to financially

abuse a senior citizen by stealing her home equity , and profiting thereby, as hereinbefore alleged, AHM's breached its fiduciary duties to Donella Dennis. 104. The other Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing about AHM's breaches of

fiduciary duties owed to Donella Dennis. Nonetheless, the Defendants, and each of them, actively, substantially, and substantively assisted, aided, abetted and advanced AHM's' fiduciary breaches in the following respects and instances (among others): h) By funding the loan through its agent AHM, making and facilitating the making of; and/or receiving part of the proceeds of a loan on the Property owned and occupied by Donella Dennis without her knowledge or consent. j) By allowing its agent AHM to make a predatory loan to Donella Dennis. n) By failing to heed numerous "red flags" and "badges" of fraud when consummating the Loan with respect to the Property that would have been obvious to any reasonable person, and then continuing to ignore them afterwards when evicting Donella Dennis from her home that were stolen from her, when any honest and reasonable person would have taken heed and corrected the manifest injustice that was occurring. 105. As a result of this misconduct by Deutsche Bank in aid and furtherance of AHM's' breach of their fiduciary duties owed to Donella Dennis, Donella Dennis lost her home equity at age 77, which was her only valuable asset and lost the income from it (rental) to sustain herself and her health and well being, and suffered unbearable emotional distress and anxiety, resulting in severe physical illness and ultimately death. 106. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants constitutes despicable conduct that subjected

Donella Dennis to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,19 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

107. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs I through 63, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 108. The Plaintiff requests that the March 2011 trustee's sale be declared void, and that the

Plaintiffs be declared owner of the Property and that Plaintiff's home was wrongfully foreclosed as a direct result of Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's breach of fiduciary duty, predatory lending and financial elder abuse. 109. To be fair to Plaintiff the Court should make a determination whether Defendants American

Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, actions in inducing P1aintif into a predatory, unfair, and disadvantageous mortgage loan at age 73 was financial elder abuse and defendants acted in concert knowing full well they were insured against any defaults by the now 77 year old Plaintiff by shifting the risk to the investors in AHM 2007-1. 110. As a proximate result of Defendants American Home Mortgage and Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company. actions. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, general, special, and punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. For special damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and deter others

4. For a determination that the Trustee's Sale Deed is void; 5. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the foreclosure of Plaintiff's residence was wrongful.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,20 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12

6. That Defendant Deutsche Bank deliver the purported Trustee's Sale deed to the clerk of the court for cancellation. 7. For a further declaration that Defendant Deutsche Bank or Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1. holds no interest in the Subject Property. 8. For a further declaration that the purported interest held by Defendant Deutsche Bank or Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1.is void. 9. For reasonable attorneys' fees; 10. For costs of suit herein incurred; and 11. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

JURY DEMAND 21Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims set forth herein.

DATED: _______________ __________________________________________ (Signature) VERIFICATION I, Donnela Dennis am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have had read to me the foregoing complaint and had it explained to me by my attorney and know the contents thereof. The same is alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Inglewood, California. DATED: _________________ ___________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE,21 PREDATORY LENDING DONNELA DENNIS v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ETC. ET. AL. Case No. BC 472 41002/26/12