STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Plaintiff, vs.

IN THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT )SS: ) CAUSE NO. 02D01-12 05-MF 708 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ROBERT A. HOPKINS, BRENDONWOOD PARK APARTMENTS, WILLIAM O. SCHELM DDS, CENTENNIAL WIRELESS, CANDLELITE APARTMENTS LLC., CHEKS USA #1 and CHAPMANS BRIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendants,

ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT The Defendant, ROBERT A. HOPKINS (hereinafter Defendant) hereby files his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA (hereinafter Plaintiff) Complaint on Note and to Foreclose Mortgage on Real Estate and further states: 1. Defendant declares that paragraph 1 is a legal declaration and need not be denied. 2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3. 3. Defendant admits and denies in part the statement(s) made in paragraph 4 to the extent that Defendant does not believe that Plaintiffs Exhibit is the same promissory note that was signed by him and until such time as Plaintiff is able to produce the Original promissory note for examination, it is impossible for him to make such a determination. 4. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 5. 5. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore denies the allegations and further questions the validity of the assignment to Plaintiff by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS). 6. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.

7. Paragraph 9 contains legal assertions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore denies and demands full proof thereof. 8. In response to the assertion contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiff may be entitled to reasonable fees incurred for actions taken by Plaintiff to protect its property interest to the extent allowed under the law. 9. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the factual assertions contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore denies those assertions and demands full proof thereof. 10. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge of the allegations in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint and therefore denies the allegations. GENERAL DENIAL 11. To the extent not expressly admitted herein, Defendant generally denies the allegations contained within the Plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof, as required by the Constitution, Statutes, Laws and Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer, assert any additional counterclaims or causes of actions, he may have against Plaintiff and to aver any affirmative defenses available to him within time allowed and/or at the discretion of the court. INTRODUCTION/FACTS Defendant contends that Plaintiff has committed numerous acts of fraud, including without limitations, Plaintiffs purposeful fraud in attempting to appear as the proper note holder in due course on the subject property located at 8011 Mackinac Cv, Fort Wayne, IN 46835-9106 (Property) to this honorable court, when in fact Plaintiff is NOT the Real Party in interest in this instant matter. Through this action and at trial, Defendant will establish that Plaintiff is not his true creditor and as such has no legal, equitable, or pecuniary right in the debt obligation secured by the Property. The subject mortgage loan is a federally related mortgage loan subject to federal laws, rules and regulations relating to the providing of notices, enforcement, servicing, and pre-suit default prevention procedures including the requirement for a face-to-face meeting with the defendant, including federally mandated loan modifications options. 2

DEFENDANTS FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Fraud 1. The Plaintiff in this matter is Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The lender on the note is American Mortgage & Financial Solutions, Inc.. Plaintiff claims that it owns and holds the note and mortgage by way of assignment recorded on February 20, 2012. (Complaint Ex. E) No where in the mortgage is MERS given a beneficial interest in the promissory note, nor has it ever held a beneficial interest in the mortgage. MERS never has had possession of the promissory note and therefore is barred from making such an assignment. Plaintiff claims that it obtained its interest in the note and mortgage from an assignment of the mortgage and note from MERS. (Complaint Ex. E) MERS cannot assign that which it does not have an interest in, and it did not have an interest in the note or even the mortgage in this instant matter. DEFENDANTS SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Lack of Standing 2. Plaintiff does not own and hold the note. If the mortgage has not been properly assigned to Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit because it has suffered no legally cognizable injury upon which relief can be granted. Wherefore, plaintiff is not a real party in interest and does not have a valid security interest in the Property. DEFENDANTS THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Payment Supporting Equitable Lien/Subrogation 3. Plaintiff claims an ownership interest in the note by way of an illegal assignment. However, the Plaintiff can not show that it paid any money or value for the assignment, for the note or for the mortgage. Wherefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable lien if one is requested. DEFENDANTS FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unauthentic Endorsements 4. Defendant denies the authenticity of each and every endorsement on the Note and Mortgage attached to Plaintiffs Complaint (Complaint Ex. B and Ex. D), including his own alleged endorsements, and demands strict proof thereof, by clear and convincing evidence. DEFENDANTS FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3

Lack of Default 5. Plaintiff has not and cannot show default as required pursuant to the Note. DEFENDANTS SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Res Judicata/Estoppel 6. The Defendant asserts the defense of Estoppel. The subject promissory note is nonnegotiable paper. The Plaintiff is not a holder in due course and on information and belief, the original promissory note is lost or stolen as it is not believed that the copy attached to Plaintiffs complaint is the same one in which the Defendant signed. Accordingly, An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and it can be proven that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. DEFENDANTS SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE/CLAIM Quasi-Estoppel 7. The Defendant assert a claim under the Defense to Acceleration and Foreclosure clause in Paragraph 9 of the Mortgage of quasi-estoppel. Also known as Estoppel by Conduct, this cause of action prohibits Plaintiff from asserting a right, to the disadvantage of the Defendant that is inconsistent with a position previously taken by Plaintiff. Defendant in January of 2012 and again in April of 2012, requested help from the Plaintiff and as instructed by Plaintiff, applied for a modification under The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which is part of the Making Homes Affordable (MHA) initiative. To-date, Plaintiff has failed to render a decision regarding same. The Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, NA choose to Participate in the MHA initiative when it began to accept monetary incentives from the Federal government in exchange for the commitment to make efforts to modify defaulting borrowers single family residential mortgages. This position taken by Plaintiff recognizes the curing of default through a modification, by short sale, or by allowing a Borrower to sign a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure as a more productive and less expensive way rather than foreclosure. As such, the first two elements of a quasi-estoppel; acquiescence and a benefit are satisfied. 8. Plaintiff has ignored the Handbook, when it failed to consider the Defendants requests for the available relief options. This position is completely inconsistent with its prior offer to

consider Defendant under the various loss mitigation options in order to cure the default of the loan. Plaintiffs actions were in direct contravention of the foreclosure preventative alternatives espoused in its advertisements to consumers. This inconsistent position satisfies the third element of a quasi-estoppel. 9. It would be unconscionable to permit Plaintiff to maintain this position and move forward with judgment against Defendant and then a foreclosure sale and would cause irreparable harm to Defendant. The Defendant took Plaintiff at its word, believing that it would consider him for modification and other alternative loss mitigation options afforded to them. The Defendant relied upon Plaintiffs representations to help save his home from foreclosure. Allowing Plaintiff to ignore its obligations to the Defendant would be unconscionable. DEFENDANTS EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE/CLAIM Failure to Comply with Federal Loan Servicing Requirements 10. The subject mortgage loan is a federally related mortgage loan subject to federal regulations and laws. Plaintiff intentionally failed to act in good faith or to deal fairly with Defendant by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential single family mortgage lending and servicing as described herein thereby denying Defendant access to the residential mortgage servicing protocols applicable to the subject note and mortgage pursuant to The National Housing Act. Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701X(c)(5), under which Plaintiff is required to complete pre-foreclosure counseling for the Defendant. As a qualified homeowner, Defendant should have been notified of his eligibility for this counseling within the prescribed time limits, but instead were denied this information even after taking the initiative by contacting the Plaintiff repeatedly. The Secretary of HUD determined that if a creditors complianceis challenged in court, the ultimate determination of the adequacy of the creditors notification and the legal consequences of any noncompliance will be made by the court. 55 FR 2416 (01/24/1990). Additionally, the Secretary of HUD has determined that noncompliance with the statute can be an actionable event that could affect a mortgagee ability to carry out foreclosure in a timely manner. 54 Fed. Reg. 20964-65 (May 15, 1989). The provision of this counseling is an affirmative obligation for the Plaintiff, the failure of which prevents a valid foreclosure action.

DEFENDANTS NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE/CLAIM FAILURE TO CONDITION PRECEDENT 11. Plaintiff seeks to enforce an agreement through foreclosure when Plaintiff itself has failed to perform under the terms and conditions of the agreement. Plaintiffs failure to perform under the agreement bars it from claiming a default. DEFENDANTS TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HUD Violations 12. The mortgage which is the subject of this action is insured by the federal SingleFamily Loan Insurance Program. Therefore, Plaintiff must service the mortgage according to the applicable federal regulations. Plaintiff failed to comply with these regulations as detailed below, precluding the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. (a) Failed to send a delinquency notice as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.602. (b) Failed to contact or make reasonable attempts to contact Defendants as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.604. (c) Failed to have a face-to-face interview or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting prior to a mortgagor being in default for three installment payments on the mortgage and prior to filing a complaint for foreclosure. 24 C.F.R. 203. 604 (b). (d) Failed to properly mitigate. Before four full monthly installments due on the mortgage have become unpaid, the mortgagee shall evaluate on a monthly basis all of the loss mitigation techniques provided at 203.501 to determine which is appropriate. Based upon such evaluations, the mortgagee shall take the appropriate loss mitigation action. Documentation must be maintained for the initial and all subsequent evaluations and resulting loss mitigation actions. In this instant matter, Plaintiff failed to properly evaluate on a monthly basis all loss mitigation options and therefore is in violation of 203. 605 and 606, wherein it is noted that Foreclosure may not be initiated until all Loss Mitigation options have been considered. (e) Failed to provide a default notice as required by 24 C.F.R. 650. (f) The Department of Housing and Urban Development has determined that the requirements of 24 C.F.R. Part 203(c) are to be followed before any mortgagee foreclosure. 6

(g) Plaintiff has no valid cause of action for foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff can demonstrate compliance with regulations 24 C.F.R. 203. (h) This Defendant made significant efforts to access foreclosure prevention services from Plaintiff and to make payments, however Plaintiff denied this Defendant the required opportunity to access and obtain mortgage servicing options designed to avoid foreclosure of the Property. The failure of a mortgagee of a HUD insured mortgage to comply with the requirements set forth in 24 C.F.R. Part 203 for the servicing of HUD insured mortgages constitutes an affirmative defense to a foreclosure action. Florence R. Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587 Indiana Appeals Court 2010 and Bankers Life Company vs. Denton, 120 Ill.App.3d 67 458 N.E.2nd 203, 76 IL Dec. 64 (3rd Dist. 1983). The Plaintiff thus comes to Court with unclean hands as a result of its failures and omissions as set forth above and incorporated herein. Plaintiff therefore should be prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure from this Court. The Plaintiffs unclean hands result form the Plaintiffs intentional and reckless failure to properly service this mortgage pursuant to the federal regulations, and specifically, by filing this foreclosure action before fully evaluating Defendant for all of the loss mitigation options available to him, including modification under HAMP. As a matter of equity, this Court should refuse to allow this foreclosure process to continue because acceleration of the note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration unconscionable. DEFENDANTS ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Illegal Charges Added to Balance 13. Plaintiff has charged and/or collected payments from Defendant for attorney fees, legal fees, foreclosure costs, late charges, property inspection fees, title search expenses, filing fees, broker price opinions, appraisal fees, and other charges and advances, and predatory lending fees and charges that are not authorized by or in conformity with the terms of the subject note and mortgage. Plaintiff wrongfully added and continues to unilaterally add these illegal and excessive charges to the balance that Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the subject note and mortgage. DEFENDANTS TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unclean Hands

14. The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands and is prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure from this Court. The Plaintiffs unclean hands result from the Plaintiff improvident and predatory intentional failure to comply with material terms of the mortgage and note as well as federal regulations. The failure to comply with the default loan servicing requirements that apply to this loan, all as described herein above. As a matter of equity, this Court should refuse to foreclose this mortgage because acceleration of the note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration unconscionable. 15. Furthermore, this Court should refuse the acceleration and deny foreclosure because Plaintiff was waived the right to acceleration or is estopped from doing so because of misleading conduct and unfulfilled contractual and equitable conditions precedent. The Plaintiff is pursuing this foreclosure under a guise of authority it does not have. In equity, the clean-hands doctrine bars relief to those guilty of improper conduct in the matter in which they seek relief. Wilson, supra; Marshall v. Marshall, 227 Ark. 582, 300 S.W.2d 933 (1957). The doctrine of unclean hands is an equitable tenet[,] which demands one who seeks equitable relief to be free from wrongdoing in the matter Stewart v. Jackson, 635 N.E.2d 186, 189before the Court. (Ind.Ct.App.1994). A foreclosure action is an equitable proceeding which may be denied if the holder of the note comes to the court with unclean hands or the foreclosure would be unconscionable. Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786, 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The purpose of the clean-hands doctrine is to protect the interest of the public on grounds of public policy and to protect the integrity of the court. Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 16 (1991).

DEFENDANTS THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. 1692 Et. seq. 16. Defendant is a consumer within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692a (3). Plaintiff and its agents and attorneys are debt collectors within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). The Plaintiff, its agents and attorneys violated 15 U.S.C. 1692d by engaging in certain conduct, the natural consequence of which, is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person, and which did harass, oppress and abuse the Defendant by falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of the debt (15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)); by sale or transfer of an interest in the

debt that caused the consumer to lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt, and in particular, by obfuscation of the true creditor (15 U.S.C. 1692e(6)); by the collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law (15 U.S.C. 1692f(1)); by taking or threatening to unlawfully repossess or disable the Defendants property (15 U.S.C. 1692f(6)); by failing to comply with noticing requirements in so much that Plaintiff sent notice containing a statement that unless the Defendants, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.. a statement that if the Defendants notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the Defendants and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the Defendants by the debt collector; and a statement that, upon the Defendants' written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the Defendants with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor (15 U.S.C. 1692g). On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff through its legal representative sent the Defendant a notification containing the above statement. (See attached Exhibit A) On May 30, 2012, Defendant sent notice to both the Plaintiff and its legal representative that he disputed the validity of the debt and made a valid Qualified Written Request (See attached Exhibit B). As outlined in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g (5): Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumers right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor. By the filing of this foreclosure action on May 30, 2012, without allowing time for a response and failing to acknowledge Defendants written dispute, Plaintiff is in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g (5). 17. Plaintiff has violated provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act at 15 USC 1692, et. seq. because it did not have any right to enforce collection of this Mortgage and Note as it did not, nor does not have legal standing to do so. Furthermore, it did not comply with all conditions precedent, it has no legally enforceable claim against the Defendants, it did not comply with the contract requirements for acceleration, it had unclean hands, and it has harmed the credit of Defendants.

DEFENDANTS FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Violation of Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) 18. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest violated various provisions of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. section 1601 et seq. and Regulation Z section 226 et seq. by interalia: (a) failing to provide the required disclosures and by failing to present disclosures in a clear and conspicuous manner; (b) failing to provide the required disclosures to the Defendant at least three (3) business days prior to the consummation of the transaction, including two copies of notice of the right to rescind; (c) failing to provide accurate disclosures and then substantially changing the terms at closing; (d) failing to fully explain the type of mortgage that was to be provided; (e) failing to properly and accurately disclose the "amount financed;" (f) failing to clearly and accurately disclose the "finance charge;" (g) failing to clearly and accurately disclose the "total of payments;" (h) failing to clearly and accurately disclose the "annual percentage rate;" (i) failing to clearly and accurately disclose the number, amounts and timing of payments scheduled to repay the obligation; (j) failing to clearly and accurately itemize the amount financed. Defendant was never provided a good faith estimate or final loan application or explanation of the mortgage before closing, pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act. Defendant had an absolute right to cancel the transaction for three (3) business days after the transaction or within three (3) days of receiving the proper disclosures from Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest, after which, they would not be responsible for any charge or penalty. Defendant was denied a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the debt and make an informed decision. The transaction was subject to TILA and rescission rights since it was a consumer credit transaction involving a lien or security interest placed on the Defendant's principal dwelling, and was not a residential mortgage as

10

defined in 15 U.S.C. 1602(w), because the mortgage was not created to finance the acquisition of the dwelling. As a result, Defendant is entitled to rescind the transaction and elects to do so. 19. Furthermore, 15 U.S.C. 1641(g) requires: (1) In addition to other disclosures required by this subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor; (B) the date of transfer; (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor. Plaintiff, its agents and attorneys failed to provide defendants with notice of an assignment of the mortgage loan in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1641(g). DEFENDANTS FIFTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) 20. The transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendants was a federally related mortgage loan as that term is defined in the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601(1). The closing, funding, and origination of this transaction are settlement services as that term is defined in (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601(3) Defendants were charged and paid fees for which no or only nominal goods or services were received, violating RESPAs prohibition against providers of settlement services from paying referral fees and kickbacks. 12 U.S.C. 2607. Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest, by and through its agents and representatives, failed to provide The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) special information booklet, a Mortgage Servicing Disclosure Statement, a good faith estimate of settlement costs and other disclosures relating to settlement and adjustable rate interest-only mortgages in advance of consummation of the loan, and an annual Escrow Disclosure Statement for each year of the mortgage since its inception. In addition, Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest, by and through its agents and representatives, have misapplied costs and 11

fees to the loan, and charged fees already paid by Defendants thereby collecting payments for amounts not owed. Moreover, Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest has accepted fees, kickbacks and/or other things of value in exchange for referrals of settlement service business, and/or split fees and received unearned fees for services not actually performed; Said violations of RESPA subject Plaintiff to a civil penalty of three (3) times the amount of any charge paid for settlement services. 12 U.S.C. 2607(d)(2). DEFENDANTS SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Violation of HOEPA 21. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and/or its predecessor(s) in interest violated various provisions of the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA") pursuant to 15 USC 1639 et seq. by failing to make proper disclosures and committing intentional predatory lending by including prohibited terms. These violations provide an extended three year right to rescission and enhanced monetary damages for the Defendants. DEFENDANTS SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Notice of Assignment, Sale or Transfer of Servicing [24 C.F.R. 3500.21] 22. The Plaintiff is Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The lender on the note is American Mortgage & Financial Solutions, Inc.. Plaintiff claims that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. The Plaintiff claims that the note and mortgage were assigned to it. The Defendant, as a borrower, was not provided with any notice of a sale, assignment or transfer in servicing as required pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 3500.21(d), which provides: Notices of Transfer; loan servicing. (1) Requirement for notice. (i) Except as provided in this paragraph (d)(1)(i) or paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, each transferor servicer and transferee servicer of any mortgage servicing loan shall deliver to the borrower a written Notice of Transfer, containing the information described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the loan. The following transfers are not considered an assignment, sale, or transfer of mortgage loan servicing for purposes of this requirement if there is no change in the payee, address to which payment must be delivered, account number, or amount of payment due:

12

(A) Transfers between affiliates; (B) Transfers resulting from mergers or acquisitions of servicers or subservicers; and (C) Transfers between master servicers, where the subservicer remains the same. (2) Time of notice. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section: (A) The transferor servicer shall deliver the Notice of Transfer to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan; (B) The transferee servicer shall deliver the Notice of Transfer to the borrower not more than 15 days after the effective date of the transfer; and (C) The transferor and transferee servicers may combine their notices into one notice, which shall be delivered to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan. (ii) The Notice of Transfer shall be delivered to the borrower by the transferor servicer or the transferee servicer not more than 30 days after the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan in any case in which the transfer of servicing is preceded by:(A) Termination of the contract for servicing the loan for cause; (B) Commencement of proceedings for bankruptcy of the servicer; or (C) Commencement of proceedings by the Federal Deposit Insurance . . . DEFENDANTS EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Abuse of Process 23. Plaintiff, its agents and attorneys made an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process and had an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal, improper or perverted process. Plaintiff, its agents and attorneys had no legal justification to bring an action to try to foreclose upon Defendants property and Defendant was injured and irreparably harmed as a result of Plaintiffs actions and that of its agents and/or attorneys. DEFENDANTS NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Collateral Source Payments 23. Defendant demands credit for and application of any and all collateral source payments Plaintiff, its predecessors in interest, co-owners, trust beneficiaries, certificate holders, or any others associated with this Note and Mortgage have received or will be entitled to receive from any source whatsoever as a result of the default claimed, including credit default insurance, credit default swaps, whether funded directly by insurance and/or indemnity agreement or indirectly paid

13

or furnished by means of federal (i.e. TARP funds) assistance on an apportioned basis for loans or groups of loans to which the subject mortgage loan of the action is claimed. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 24. Defendant reserves the right to pursue such additional defenses as may be proved in the course of litigation and to make any counter-claims as may be appropriate. Defendant is appearing Pro se, and pray that not only will his Answer be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. In Re. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but at minimum, that they be allowed to amend their Answer to correct any and all deficiencies. In accordance with the Supreme Court of the United States pro se Pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyers and/or attorneys; and whose motions, pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form. See: Haines v. Kerner; Platsky v. CIA; Anastasoff v. United States. See also: Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25; In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. WHEREFORE Defendant, for all the foregoing reasons, requests this Court deny all relief prayed for by Plaintiff and dismiss the complaint with prejudice, enter an Order declaring the subject transaction rescinded with the result that Plaintiffs security is void and unenforceable, canceling the mortgage of record, quieting title to the Property to the Defendant, award Defendant actual compensatory or statutory damages, costs, and any and all other relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, to which Defendant may be entitled and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted on this ____ day of June, 2012 by: ____________________________ Robert A. Hopkins, Pro-Se 8011 Mackinac Cv Fort Wayne, IN 46835 260-755-3496

14

Verified Affidavit

I, Robert A. Hopkins, Defendant, having been duly sworn, under penalty of perjury, deposes and says that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am mentally competent to testify. I currently reside at 8011 Mackinac Cv, Fort Wayne, IN 46835. I declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information herein is true and correct and further affirm that all of my Answers and Defenses stated in my Answer to Foreclosure Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Further, as a reiteration to my stated Affirmative Defenses, in January of 2012 and again in April of 2012, I requested help from Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Plaintiff and as instructed by their representatives, applied for a modification under The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). To-date, I have not received an answer to my application. In addition, Wells Fargo Bank, NA has not offered to help me pursue any other loss mitigation option that may be available to me. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701X(c)(5), under which Plaintiff is required to complete pre-foreclosure counseling for the Defendant. Moreover, I have shown herein that Wells Fargo, NA and/or it predecessors has committed fraud upon the Court, lacks standing to foreclose on my Property, has failed to Comply with Federal Loan Servicing Requirements, violated my rights under HUD, TILA, RESPA, the FDCPA, and HOEPA, thereby entitling me to all appropriate relief provided for by both federal and state statutes.

Dated this _____day of June, 2012

By:

_______________________________ Robert A. Hopkins, Defendant, Pro Se

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ____day of June, 2012. Seal ____________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: _____________________

15

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true copy of this document has been sent by U.S. Certified Mail to Kathleen M. Hetrick, Attorney for Plaintiff at the law firm of Feiwell & Hannoy, P.C., 251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 1700, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1944, and by regular U.S. Mail to Brendonwood Park Apts, Defendant, 1004 Fayette Dr. Ft. Wayne, IN 46816, Schelm William O DDS, Defendant, 5933 Stellhorn Rd, Ft. Wayne, IN 46815, Centennial Wireless, Defendant, 3349 State Route 138, Bldg A, Wall Township, NJ 07719, Candlelite Apts, LLC, Defendant, James H Calkins, 522 Pinegrove Ln, Ft. Wayne, IN 46807, Checks USA, Defendant, 2020 Broadway, Ft. Wayne, IN 46802 and to Chapmans Bridge Community, Defendant, Lisa Downey, 10808 La Cabreah Ln, Ft. Wayne, IN 46845 on this ______ day of June , 2012.

____________________________ Robert A. Hopkins, Pro-Se 8011 Mackinac Cv Fort Wayne, IN 46835 260-755-3496

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

EXHIBIT A pg 1-2 16

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

EXHIBIT A pg 2-2

17

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

EXHIBIT B pg 1-3 18

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

EXHIBIT B pg 2-3 19

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

EXHIBIT B pg 3-3 20

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Robert A. Hopkins, et. al. 02D01-12 05-MF 708

21