Complete First Amended Complaint - Savannah Jackson - 4-18

1
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Emmanuel F. Fobi (SBN: 210764)
LAW OFFICE OF EMMANUEL F. FOBI
309 SOUTH A STREET
Oxnard, CA 93030
Tel: (805) 240-2655
Fax: (805) 483-1536

Attorney for Plaintiff
Savannah Ally Jackson

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF INYO

Savannah Ally Jackson, an individual,

Plaintiff;

v.

DECISION ONE MORTGAGE
COMPANY, LLC, a business entity, form
unknown; AMERICAS SERVICING
COMPANY, a Business entity, form
unknown; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., a
Business entity, form unknown;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR
ASSET SECURITIZATION
CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2, a
business entity, form unknown; NDEX
WEST, LLC, a business entity, form
unknown, SERVICELINK, a Division of
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., a National Association; Steven C.
Porter, an individual; Cheryl L. Asher, an
individual; Anne Neely, an individual;
Stephanie C. Porter, an individual; Esther
Jean Hernandez, an individual; Randy
Middleton, an individual; China Brown,
an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive;

Defendants.
Case No: SI CV CV 1051088

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good
Faith And Fair Dealing;
2. Wrongful Foreclosure, (California Civil
Code 2924 Et Seq.)
3. To Set Aside Unlwaful Transfer;
4. Tortious Interference With A Contract;
5. Violations Of The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, (15 U.S.C. 1692 Et Seq.),
6. Failure To Give Proper Notice Of Default,
Right To Cure And Acceleration Notice,
(Violation Of 12 U.S. C. 2601 Et Seq., 15
U.S.C. 1601, Et Seq. And Title 12
C.F.R., 226.18, California Civil Code
2924 Et Seq.);
7. Violation Of California Unfair Competetion
Law, (California Business And Professions
Code 17200 Et Seq.)
8. Violation Of California Business And
Professions Code 17500
CIVIL - UNLIMITED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for violations of numerous California State and Federal laws and
contractual rights of the Plaintiff which resulted in damage to the Plaintiff. The actions of the
Defendants relating to the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust purportedly securing her property to
the condition of her repayment stated in that Promissory Note, and the non-judicial foreclosure
effectuated on the Plaintiff and her property constitute unfair trade practices, and wilful, intentional
wrongful and illegal conduct which require this Courts intervention
2. Plaintiff, Savannah Ally Jackson, by and through her attorney of record, Emmanuel
F. Fobi, SBN 210764, alleges the following, on information and belief:
I. PARTIES
3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Savannah Ally Jackson, (formerly
known as Alyson J. Denk), (Plaintiff) was a resident of Inyo County located in the State of
California, was a citizen of the United States of America, and was/is an individual residing at a
residential home, legally described as:
THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN
BOOK 1 PAGE 1 PAGE 30 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY

A.P.N.: 001-105-06, which currently has the address of 486 North 2
nd
Street, Bishop, CA 93514
(the Subject Property).
4. Defendant DECISION ONE is believed to be a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of North Carolina, whose current address is believed to be 3023 HSBC Way, Fort
Mill, South Carolina 29715.

3
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant DECISION ONE MORTGAGE
COMPANY, LLC, (DECISION ONE), was the entity purported to be the lender on the
Plaintiffs Deed of Trust and Promissory Note.
6. Defendant DECISION ONE is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation
organized and operated under the laws of the State of North Carolina.
7. Defendant DECISION ONEs true name and any other capacity are not currently
known beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add
those facts when ascertained.
8. Defendant AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, (ASC), is believed to be a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff
whos corporate headquarters are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.
9. Defendant ASC was the purported servicer on the Plaintiffs alleged refinance
loan. Without any evidence of a change to a different position, Defendant ASC was falsely and
fraudulently touted as the creditor and beneficiary of the Plaintiffs Note and Deed of Trust
Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell.
10. Defendant ASC refused to communicate with the Plaintiff, failed to properly
respond to multiple Qualified Written Requests, and stonewalled every attempt by the Plaintiff to
work out a loan modification based on the fact that the loan product she was put in had terms and
conditions so one-sided and onerous, as to be illegal.
11. Defendant ASC is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation.
12. Defendant ASCs true name and any other capacity are not currently known beyond
this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts when
ascertained.

4
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13. Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Inc.
(MERS), has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an
address of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, Michigan 48501-2026. Defendant MERS is a foreign corporation
with relation to The State of California, and until July of 2010, was not registered to do business in
this State.
14. Defendant MERS is listed as the nominee beneficiary on the Plaintiffs Deed of
Trust. The true nature of what this meant, why MERS was involved to facilitate the securitization
of the Plaintiffs Promissory Note, and the resulting legal quagmire played out on the Official
Land Records of every single county recorders office in the country was never fully disclosed to
the Plaintiff.
15. Defendant MERS is also later evidenced as having executed an Assignment of the
Plaintiffs Note and Deed of Trust to Defendant DEUTSCHE. This was done by an individual
claiming to be the Assistant Vice President of Defendant MERS signing that assignment, even
though MERS former CEO admitted in testimony given under oath that MERS has no employees.
16. Defendant MERS executed that Assignment in exchange for VALUE from
Defendant DEUTSCHE. MERS has executed millions of these assignments, including the one in
this case, all without paying a single cent in California State taxes, despite millions of these
assignments stating on the face of the document that MERS executed the assignment, FOR
VALUE RECEIVED.
17. Defendant MERS has transacted business throughout the State of California,
including the County of Inyo, specifically by selling to be right, title and interest in the Plaintiff
and others Promissory Notes and the Deeds of Trusts through these assignments. Until July of
2010, this was done by MERS without MERS having a Certificate of Qualification issued from the

5
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Secretary of State for Defendant MERS, (an admitted foreign corporation) to legally do business
in this State. MERS failure to register was to effectuate its actual purpose facilitating the
evasion of multiple forms of California State taxes.
18. Under California Law, the assignment in this case is void for MERS failure to pay
the requisite taxes.
19. Defendant MERS is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation organized and
operated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
20. Defendant MERS true name and any other capacity are not currently known
beyond this and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts
when ascertained.
21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET SECURITIZATION
CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2, (DEUTSCHE), a business entity, form unknown; has been
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff,
who is believed to have the current address of 1761 E Saint Andrew PL, Santa Ana CA 92705-
4934.
22. Defendant DEUTSCHE substituted out the Trustee on the Plaintiffs DOT and
substituted in Defendant NDEx prior to Defendant DEUTSCHE even appearing to attain
beneficiary status on the Plaintiffs DOT. After this, Defendant DEUTSCHE allegedly obtained
the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT via an assignment from Defendant
MERS which is actually void under California Law for MERS failure to pay State taxes.
23. Defendant DEUTSCHE then directed the substituted Trustee, Defendant NDEx, to
execute, record and mail a Notice of Trustees Sale. Following that, a Trustees Sale was held

6
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

where DEUTSCHE claimed to be the foreclosing beneficiary and the grantee, receiving the
property via credit bid for $212,500.
24. That sale was subsequently rescinded, and DEUTSCHE directed NDEx to issue
another NOTS and hold another sale. At that second sale, Defendant DEUTSCHE was listed as
the grantee and as the beneficiary. Defendant DEUTSCHE became the grantee via a Credit Bid
in the amount of $199,750, and the documentary transfer tax fees were stated to be n/a.
25. Thereafter, Defendant DEUTSCHE proceeded against the Plaintiff with an
Unlawful Detainer complaint, which is currently in progress in Inyo County Superior Court.
26. Defendant DEUTSCHE is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation.
27. Defendant DEUTSCHEs true name and any other capacity are not currently known
beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add those facts
when ascertained.
28. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
(WFB), was a National Association organized and existing under the National Bank Act, who is
believed to have its corporate headquarters located at 420 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA
94163.
29. Acting as the Attorney in Fact for Defendant DEUTSCHE, Defendant WFB
directed one of its agents to execute a document substituting out the Trustee on the Plaintiffs Deed
of Trust.
30. Defendant WFB is therefore sued in its capacity as a corporation rather than a
National Association under the protection of the National Bank Act.

7
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

31. Defendant WFBs true name and any other capacity are not currently known
when ascertained.
32. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant NDEx WEST, LLC, (NDEx),
was business entity, form unknown, has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff, whose address is believed to have the business
address of 15000 Surveyor Blvd, Suite 100, Addison, TX 75001.
33. Defendant NDEx was listed as the c/o entity for Defendant ASC on the Notice of
Default. Defendant NDEx is also the entity who Defendants DEUTSCHE and WELLS FARGO
substituted in as the Trustee on the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust, executed the Notice of Trustees Sale
and requested it to be recorded, was an integral part of Defendant DEUTSCHES exercise of the
power of sale clause in the DOT, and was stated to be the Trustee on the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust
before, throughout and after both Trustees Sales.
34. Defendant NDEx is therefore sued in its capacity as a Limited Liability Company.
35. Defendant NDExs true name and any other capacity are not currently known
when ascertained.
36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant SERVICELINK,
(SERVICELINK), a Division of CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, has been a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of a State currently unknown to the Plaintiff,
whose address is currently unknown.

8
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

37. Despite obvious facial fraud and flaws in the NOD, SOT, ADOT, both NOTSs and
both TDUSs, Defendant SERVICELINK caused the NOD, SOT, ADOT, and both NOTSs to be
recorded in the ICRO.
38. Defendant SERVICELINKs true name and any other capacity are not currently
known beyond this, and the Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to amend her Complaint to add
those facts when ascertained.
39. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to the specific allegations against
Cheryl L. Asher, (Asher), Defendant Asher was an individual who purportedly acted in an
authorized capacity for Defendant NDEx on February 12, 2009, by affixing her signature to
Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell.
40. Defendant Asher is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory
and/or representative for NDEx, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of the
United States of America.
China Brown, (Brown), Defendant Brown was an individual acting on behalf of Defendant ASC
on February 11, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit 4 herein, the Notice of Default
Declaration Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.5.
42. Defendant Brown is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized
signatory and/or representative for Defendant ASC, and in her private and individual capacity as a
citizen of the United States of America.
Anne Neely, (Neely), Defendant Neely was an individual claiming to be VP of Loan Doc for
Defendant WFB, and she is believed to have acted in an authorized capacity for Defendant WFB

9
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

on March 16, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit 5 herein, the Substitution of Trustee
document which substituted out the original Trustee on the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust, and
substituted in Defendant NDEx as the Trustee.
44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Neely was not
actually an authorized signatory for Defendant WFB, rather, was falsely and fraudulently
perpetrating as one.
45. Defendant Neely is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory
and/or representative for Defendant WFB, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of
the United States of America.
Stephanie C. Porter, (Porter), Defendant Porter was an individual believed to have acted in an
authorized capacity for Defendant MERS on March 19, 2009, by affixing her signature to Exhibit
7 herein, the Assignment of Deed of Trust on behalf of Defendant MERS, which purported to
transfer all right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust and Promissory Note from
Defendant MERS to Defendant DEUTSCHE.
47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter was not
actually an authorized signatory for Defendant MERS, rather, was falsely and fraudulently
perpetrating as one.
48. Defendant Porter is therefore sued in her official capacity as an authorized signatory
and representative of Defendant MERS, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen of
the United States of America.

10
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

49. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant to the
specific allegations against Esther Jean Hernandez, (Hernandez), Defendant Hernandez was a
Notary Public, registered in the State of Texas, Commission Expiring February 2, 2011.
50. Defendant Hernandez was an individual who purportedly acted in her official
capacity as a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas when affixing her official seal and
signature to Exhibit 7 herein, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, on March 19, 2009.
51. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandez
falsely authenticated Defendant Porters signature as being authorized to act in a signatory capacity
for Defendant MERS on the March 19, 2009, ADOT, and further believes that document is void
for such.
52. Defendant Hernandez is therefore sued in both her Public and Official capacity as a
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, and in her private and individual capacity as a citizen
of the Untied States of America.
Randy Middleton, (Middleton), Defendant Middleton was an individual falsely and fraudulently
acting on behalf of Defendant NDEx on January 13, 2010, by affixing his signature to Exhibits 8,
9, 13, and 14 herein, both Notices of Trustees Sale and both Trustees Deeds Upon Sale.
54. Defendant Middleton is therefore sued in his official capacity as an authorized
signatory and/or representative for Defendant NDEx, and in her private and individual capacity as
a citizen of the United States of America.
55. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities or capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate or otherwise, of those Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive. Plaintiff therefore sues those Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask

11
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

leave of court to amend this complaint to set forth the names and capacities of these Defendants
when they are ascertained.
56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, the Defendants sued herein and DOES 1 though 10, inclusive, and each of them are in
some way responsible for the acts and events complained of herein and proximately caused
injuries and damages to Plaintiff which are described in this Complaint.
57. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that only where specifically
stated or implicated or implied, each of the Defendants was the employer, employee, agent,
assignee, grantee and/or successor of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter
alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment and capacity.
58. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to more specifically set
forth the wrongful conduct of all named and unnamed Defendants when it has been ascertained.
59.
Whenever an act or omission of a corporation or business entity is alleged in this
Complaint, the allegation shall be deemed to mean and include an allegation that the corporation or
business entity acted or omitted to act through its authorized officers, directors, agents, servants,
and/or employees, acting within the course and scope of her duties, that the act or omission was
authorized by corporate managerial officers or directors, and that the act or omission was ratified
by the officers and directors of the corporation or business entity.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
60. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332
because this action is between parties that are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000, and under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 1692 et seq. to obtain monetary civil penalties and injunctive relief.

12
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

61. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a national bank is a citizen of the state
designated as its main office on its organization certificate. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546
U.S. 303, 306 (2006).
62. Defendant MERS is, on information and belief, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, in accordance with the provisions of Section
151(g) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
63. Defendant DECISION ONE is, on information and belief, a citizen of the State of
Delaware or the State of North Carolina, but not the State of California.
64. The Plaintiff, Savanna Ally Jackson, is a citizen of The State of California.
65. Plaintiff also invokes this Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1367.
66. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) inasmuch as the
unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed in this District, Defendants regularly
conduct their business in this District, the named Plaintiff resides in this District, and the Subject
Property is located in this District.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. THE ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTION
67. On or about October 26, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a purported consumer
mortgage transaction with Defendant DECISION ONE to refinance an alleged preexisting first
mortgage.
68. The $304,500 purported loan from Defendant DECISION ONE was claimed to be
a Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan (Purported Loan), consummated by Plaintiff through
the alleged execution of an Interest Only Adjustable Rate Note (Note), (Exhibit 1), together

13
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

with a Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider (Rider) (Exhibit 2), and claimed to be secured by a first
Deed of Trust (DOT) (Exhibit 3) on the Plaintiffs home the Subject Property.
69. Since the Purported Loan allegedly involves a refinancing of the Plaintiff
principal dwelling, the purpose of which was for personal, household and family use, it was made
subject to rescission pursuant to the Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1635 and 1640
(TILA), Regulation Z 226.23 (Reg. Z).
70. The Note and DOT documents constitute contracts between the Plaintiff and
Defendant DECISION ONE.
71. The Rider was attached to the back of the DOT, and on November 30, 2006, the
Rider and DOT were recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office as Document Number 2006-
0004926.
72. At the time Plaintiff executed the Note, she did not realize that Defendant
DECISION ONE had not given consideration under California Civil Code 3391 to her prior to
her actual signing of the Note despite the fact that the Note specifically states: In return for a
loan that I have received, I promise to pay . . . , plus interest, to the order of Lender.
73. In addition to the above, this language falsely implies defendant DECISION ONE
actually paid consideration in the form of loaning money to the Plaintiff out of its own stocks,
bonds, and/or assets, prior to the Plaintiff signing the Note, and thereby putting its own capital at
risk as the Plaintiff was putting her home at risk as consideration for the consummation of this
transaction.
74. Defendant DECISION ONE falsely claims to have paid consideration, and to make
defendant DECISION ONEs claim of having paid consideration an even greater

14
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

misrepresentation, Banks are constitutionally prohibited from lending credit pursuant to U.S.
Const. Art. 1, 10, Cl. 1.
75. The alleged loan has no substance and was created to give the effect that
Defendant DECISION ONE gave something of intrinsic value in exchange for the Plaintiff Note.
However, it is not legal for Defendant DECISION ONE to (1) emit a bill of credit (See U.S.
Const. Art. 1, 10, Cl. 1) and (2) loan anything of intrinsic value, i.e. gold or silver (See HJR
192).
76. To date, there has been no evidence presented publicly, or privately which shows
that Defendant DECISION ONE actually ever loaned the Plaintiff any of its own stocks, bonds,
or assets, or whether Defendant DECISION ONE was simply a broker who accepted the
Plaintiffs Promissory Note, had her execute a Deed of Trust on her home, then pre-sold her
loan to the secondary market, providing the alleged funds of $304,500 through such sale to
the secondary market.
77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that would reduce Defendant
DECISION ONE from a true lender and originator of the funds, down to a mere broker who
was actually in the middle of the Plaintiff and the entity/entities who actually originated the funds
for this alleged loan.
78. Before, during and/or after the settlement, Defendants failed and/or refused to
provide Plaintiff with copies of important documents, including the complete mortgage and Note,
which would explain their consumer rights, as well as other rights, including but not limited to, the
right to cancel the contract and the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosures.
79. Defendants also intentionally failed and/or refused to provide Plaintiff various
disclosures that would indicate to Plaintiff that the contract entered into was unconscionable,

15
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

illegal and void. For instance, Defendants failed to disclose that the loan obtained had an interest
rate higher than stated and in the preliminary disclosures, which preliminary disclosures were
never given.
80. The Defendants attorney and/or settlement officer did not furnish defendant with
copies of numerous important settlement documents, ever in the loans history.
B. THE ORIGINAL STATED PARTIES INVOLVED AND MERS ROLE
81. In this alleged consumer mortgage refinance transaction, Defendant DECISION
ONE was claimed to be the Lender and the Plaintiff was claimed to be the Borrower. Exhibit
1 at 1; Exhibit 2 at 1; Exhibit 3 at 1.
82. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY was claimed to be the Trustee. Exhibit 3 at 1.
83. According to the DOT, Defendant MERS is the beneficiary under [the DOT].
Exhibit 3 at 1.
84. Neither the acronym MERS, nor the full name, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., nor any variations thereof are included in the Note or
Rider.
85. The Note stated that the monthly payments on the alleged loan were to be made
3023 HSBC Way, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715. Exhibit 1 at 1.
86. The DOT lists 3023 HSBC Way, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715 as the address
for the Lender, Defendant DECISION ONE. Exhibit 3 at 1.
87. There are no documents on record which list Defendant MERS as the entity to
which monthly payments on the alleged loan are to be directed.
88. There are no documents on record which list Defendant MERS address as the one
that monthly payments on the alleged loan should be directed to.

16
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

89. There are no documents on record which state that Defendant MERS is the entity
entitled to the monthly payments on the alleged loan.
90. There are no documents on record which state that Defendant MERS is the entity
entitled to the proceeds stemming from any sale of the Subject Property conducted to satisfy any
obligation pursuant to the Note and Rider.
91. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS is not
the entity to which monthly payments were ever to be directed.
92. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS
address is not the address to which monthly payments on the alleged loan were ever directed to.
entitled to any monthly payments on the alleged loan.
and was never entitled to any proceeds stemming from any sale of the Subject Property conducted
to satisfy any obligation pursuant to the Note and Rider.
95. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that entitlement to payment
under an instrument is a basic prerequisite to being a beneficiary and Note Holder under that
instrument.
96. The definition of Note Holder given in the language of the note itself is [t]he
Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under
this Note is called the Note Holder. Exhibit 1, 1.
97. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS has
absolutely no authority of a Note Holder with regard to the Plaintiffs Promissory Note. As

17
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

such, MERS has no authority as a true beneficiary of the DOT and is the beneficiary under the
DOT in name only, as a shell to effectuate local, state and federal taxes.
98. AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY (ASC) was stated to be the Servicer
of the Plaintiffs purported refinance mortgage loan package. Later, with no documentation
supporting such claims, ASC purported to be the creditor and beneficiary on the Plaintiffs Note
and DOT contracts in the Notice of Default document.
C. UNCONSCIONABILITY OF DEED OF TRUST
99. For the Note and DOT contracts to be consummated, the language of the Note
contract required the Plaintiff to agree that, Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title
to the Property . . .. Exhibit 3 at 3.
100. In direct contradiction of this, the language of the DOT contract defines the
condition of the title upon the Plaintiffs fulfillment of all her contractual requirements and
obligations under the Note and DOT contracts. Regarding the condition of the Title of the
Subject Property when transferring from the alleged lender back to the borrower, the DOT states,
Trustee shall reconvey the Property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled
to it . . . . Exhibit 3 at 12, 23. (Emphasis added).
101. The Plaintiff did not have a full understanding of the true nature of these phrases,
the reasons for them, and the legal effect of such contractual language.
102. The Promissory Note and the DOT were both adhesion contracts, proposed to
the Plaintiff on a take-it or leave-it basis. The Plaintiff did not have a choice to require the
purported lender, Defendant DECISION ONE, to warranty the title back to her in the
contractual language upon her satisfaction of the purported loan.
D. THE LOAN MODIFICATION PROCESS

18
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

103. The Plaintiff, in signing the Promissory Note, promised to make all payments to
the Note Holder on time. The Plaintiff made 3 payments to Defendant DECISION ONE before
she was noticed of a new servicer, Defendant ASC, a Division of Defendant WFB, to begin
sending her monthly mortgage payments to.
104. The Plaintiff was current and on time, with a perfect payment history record and a
credit rating that was up, until October 2008, when the economy slowed down over the course of
the year and the Plaintiff had completely exhausted all savings and asset accounts. At that point,
the payment schedule was beyond what her current financial status could tolerate.
105. In June of 2008, the Plaintiff made numerous phone calls to her servicer ASC to
inquire about getting some sort of help or restructuring of her loan because she was having
employment and financial hardships and she wished to continue to make payments but could not
afford the payment of $2210.00 each month. This was prior to October and prior to being unable
to make payments.
106. The Plaintiff temporarily moved to Los Angeles in June 2008, to attempt to
remedy her current financial hardship, and relocate to a place where she thought she would have
plenty of work without the travel expenses. She thought she could rent her home out in Bishop to
cover part of the mortgage while she worked to cover the remainder of the mortgage and rent
costs in Los Angeles, she had not had to work this much nor consider relocating in her entire
residence in Bishop since 2003.
107. The Plaintiff at this point began researching the best possible way to return to
honor and save her home. In January of 2009, the Plaintiff, began employment at the Federal
Loan Modification Law Center (FLM) where she counseled hundreds of distressed homeowners
across the country. She also learned many of the predatory lending practices which are in place

19
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

today that led to our massive destruction of economy utilizing Mortgage Backed Securities and
the current Home Loan market climate.
108. As an employee of FLM Law Center, and seeing the impending crisis she
personally was facing, she inquired about getting herself into a loan modification through FLM so
as to avoid foreclosure, as she had not made a payment for 3 months.
109. The Plaintiff learned there had been a moratorium on foreclosures which had been
approved by California Legislation in February 2008 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, which gave
distressed homeowners an additional 90 days to work out a remedy for their situations.
110. The Plaintiff received the Notice of Default and Election to Sell in February of
2009, after she had attempted numerous times to get some sort of help with her loan prior to going
into default. She was told by ASC that they would not assist her until she was at least 2 months in
Default.
111. The Plaintiff sent all paperwork for a loan modification to ASC though the FLM
Law Center in order to begin the modification process, hopefully to get herself into a lower
interest rate, a longer loan term, a forbearance, or a stair-step program which would give her a
few years to recover financially and begin making payments normally again.
112. The Plaintiff worked for FLM until they went out of business in March 2009.
Leading up to the companys failure, the Attorney General extensively investigated FLM,
approved them to continue business, but their ACH transacting bank would not allow them to
operate with their prior emergency fund amounts, and froze their accounts indefinitely. As a
result, The Plaintiff took her loan modification into her own hands and no longer was under their
employ.

20
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

113. The Plaintiff took her loan modification into her own hands when she received a
Notice of Trustees Sale which informed her the sale was set for June 2 2009, even after all of her
modification paperwork had been submitted to and received by ASC in March 2009.
114. The Plaintiff, at his time started doing extensive research into all the moving parts
of her loan and the Trustees, Note Holders and who each party was playing a part. So far the list
included Defendants NDEx, MERS, DEUTSCHE, DECISION ONE, ASC, and numerous
individuals signing on behalf of these companies.
115. The Plaintiff found after numerous phone calls, internet research and questioning
of these entities that Defendant DEUTSCHE was claimed to be the loan holder, Defendant
DECISION ONE was claimed to be the Note Holder and Defendant NDEx was the foreclosure
attorney for ASC, who was the servicer. All of this sounded more than questionable, especially
given the current mortgage crisis, and the Plaintiff wondered how each of these entities was
profiting as a result of her being the Trustor/Grantor/Settlor of the Security.
116. The Plaintiff frantically resubmitted all paperwork to avoid the impending sale
date, and narrowly missed the date by 3 days, because over the previous two months, the Plaintiff
had to call ASC every 3-4 days to ask them if they had all of the correct paperwork and
information they needed to start the modification approval process. She never received any phone
calls or letters from them saying information was missing or needed to be updated, it seemed they
were intentionally wanting her to misstep and lose her home.
117. When she finally got all of the correct information to them, ASC postponed the
Trustee sale for 30 days while they reviewed the loan modification paperwork. This went on each
and every 30 day period, until August 2009. The Plaintiff had to call the County recorders office

21
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

and the Inyo Mono Title Company to make sure the house wasnt being put up for sale, they told
her that sometimes the lender called them the morning of the sale to cancel the sale.
118. The Plaintiff got a distressed phone call from the family renting her home in
Bishop, that they received a Notice of Trustees Sale posted on the door. Despite the Plaintiffs
reassurances that she was in the process of a loan modification, the renters moved out 2 weeks
later May 25th 2009.
119. The Plaintiff was incredibly stressed as she had no way to afford both rents for
herself in Los Angeles and the now empty home in Bishop, she even offered for her renters to
stay for free a month or two until the Foreclosure threat passed, and they could stay without
concern, as the loan modification would be underway, they declined, and she was left with a very
bad financial situation.
120. The Plaintiff asked a few friends to stay at her home so the locks would not be
changed, or possession of the property taken over until the Plaintiff could figure out what to do. n
August of 2009, the Plaintiff received a phone call from the friends house sitting for her, (as the
Plaintiff was still temporary staying in Los Angeles but she was coming to her Bishop property
every 2-3 weeks to maintain her residence and pick up mail), that they awoke to a sign posted on
the door that the house had gone through the Trustee sale and had been sold, back to the Bank,
which was Defendant DEUTSCHE.
121. The Plaintiff stressed that there must be some massive mistake because the house
was going through the Loan Modification process and she had received no phone calls, no written
notices that anything was declined or approved with regards to the modification. The Plaintiff
called ASC and told them she was recording the call for her records and she then asked the call
center operator to read her the notes on her file going back to as early as January.

22
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

122. The Plaintiff listened to the call operator go through each and every entry which
included approval of the Loan modification in Late July, and the request for the paperwork to be
sent out, which the operator then stated was never done. The operator went on to read that the
investor approved a trial period of payments for three months and that the corresponding
paperwork to get sent out for that, but that paperwork was also never got sent. The operator then
read that the Trustee Sale went through as of the 8th of August. At this the call operator gasped
and said oh my goodness this is a huge mistake, we need to rescind this sale immediately.
123. The Plaintiff was then put on the call with the call operators supervisor who said
this would get rescinded immediately and the new paperwork would get sent out. The Plaintiff
requested numerous times for those notes to be transcribed and sent to her in written form so she
could have acknowledgement of their mistake in her written records. They refused, saying the
lawyers never allow us to send out anything in writing. The Plaintiff also sent written request to
Defendants ASC and NDEx, requesting written verification from their records of the massive
mistake. She never got any response.
124. The Plaintiff received new paperwork about 10 days later asking her to sign for the
new trial period payments which had incorrect date. It requested the payments begin in August
and run through November, and these first two sets of dates had already passed. The Plaintiff
again made numerous calls asking for correct paperwork, as she was not going to sign anything
with incorrect dates. At one point a very nice supervisor on the phone told the Plaintiff to go
ahead and sign it anyway as the dates didnt really matter and just you know, the dates are correct
in their files and records. The Plaintiff said thats fine but please send me the correct
paperwork unless you are asking me to sign a fraudulent misleading contract. He refused to send
new paperwork. The Plaintiff called back a week later with the same request and finally got an

23
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

operator that agreed to change the dates and send the correct paperwork, which they did. It was
now early September and the trial period was set to begin in October.
125. A few days later, the Plaintiff then received a call from a negotiator named
Crystal at ASC asking her to verbally agree to loan terms over the phone of 5% interest rate and a
30 year term with payments set to be $2,156.00 per month. The Plaintiff said how can I agree to
loan terms over the phone, are you asking me to do business over the phone with no written
record? The negotiator kept pressing for The Plaintiff to agree to these terms, like it was a sale
that was going to end. She reminded the Plaintiff of a pushy sales person. The Plaintiff said I
cant agree to anything over the phone and why dont you explain to me how a loan modification
will only get me a payment of $50 less per month, when thats what I couldnt afford in the first
place? The pushy negotiator said are you declining this loan modification, and the Plaintiff
replied no, but I need to see all the terms on paper, and I need to see the accounting of how you
came up with the monthly payment figure. The pushy negotiator continued to ask the Plaintiff
to agree to the loan terms right then and there over the phone, without seeing any written loan
terms, without seeing or taking into account any of the paperwork the Plaintiff had sent in with
monthly budget financials etc. At one point the Plaintiff said, isnt there some sort of loan
where its like a stair-step program? Where the interest rate is very low like 1-2% for a few years
and then it goes to 3-4% for a few years, etc. The negotiator said thats called the H.A.M.P.
Program and you have to qualify for that, its a separate qualification process. I said I would
like to see if I qualified for that and she said well you have to say that you refused the loan
modification I am now offering you today so we can send your paperwork over there. I accepted
this and of course they sent the Plaintiff a letter confirming she had refused the loan modification.

24
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

126. The Plaintiff received the H.A.M.P. Program paperwork in the mail about a week
later, and it told her she had to set up the trial payment plan in the amount of $2,170. It seemed
like they just pulled the numbers out of thin air and were making them up, leaving the Plaintiff
wondering where they came up with the numbers, since there was no real change in amount of her
monthly payment from prior to defaulting.
127. The Plaintiff then consulted with the Inyo County Recorders office and confirmed
their reception and recordation of the Notice of Rescission of Trustee Sale.
128. Although the Plaintiff requested this document from ASC, they never sent her the
copy so she had to pick it up from the Recorders office. This was only the beginning of what
was not sent and/or delivered properly according to all Federal and California Civil and Criminal
laws pertaining to these actions and real estate and rights of the homeowner.
E. THE NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCESS
(i) The Notice of Default
129. On February 12, 2009, a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL
UNDER DEED OF TRUST (NOD) was executed by NDEx West, LLC, agent for
beneficiary by an individual, Defendant Cheryl L. Asher. Exhibit 4.
130. Neither the actual beneficiary nor the actual creditor were explicitly listed on
the NOD.
131. Regarding information required pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, (FDCPA), and the implied beneficiary and creditor, the NOD stated:
. . . unless the obligation being foreclosed upon or a separate
written agreement between you and your creditor permits a
longer period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of
your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your
creditor.

25
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment
to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for
any other reason, contact:

AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY
c/o NDEx West, LLC
15000 Surveyor boulevard, Suite 500
Addison, Texas 75001-9013
(866) 795-1852

Exhibit 4. (Emphasis added).
132. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC is
falsely implied to be the creditor and/or beneficiary on the NOD.
133. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC was
not the creditor or beneficiary on the alleged loan the Plaintiff is claimed to have defaulted
on in the NOD.
134. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that neither Defendant
ASC nor Defendant NDEx were the actual creditor at the time the NOD was executed, nor at
the time the NOD was recorded.
135. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that because neither
Defendant ASC nor Defendant NDEx were the creditor at the time the NOD was executed or at
the time it was recorded, the demand for payment in the NOD was a fraudulent attempt to extort
money from the Plaintiff, made with the threat of taking away her home backing it up.
136. The NOD listed the amount of $10,208.99 as of February 12, 2009, as the amount
requested, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that none of the defendants
alleged responsible for this cause of action had any authority or right to request any sum from the
Plaintiff, especially the completely arbitrary and fictional amount of $10,208.99
137. Regarding the specific breach and default listed, the NOD states in relevant part:

26
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

That a breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed
of Trust is security has occurred in that payment has not been made of:
. THE INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WHICH
BECAME DUE ON 11/1/2008 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT
INSTALLMENTS, TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES AS SET
FORTH IN SAID NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST, ADVANCES,
ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND/OR TRUSTEE FEES, IF ANY.

138. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that California Law is clear
that a Trustees Sale simply cannot be predicated upon a Notice of Default containing the
conditional language if any because if any is not any default the claimed borrower can cure.
139. On February 12, 2008, the NOD was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders
Office as Document Number 2009-0000359-00, per the request of Defendant SERVICELINK.
Id.
140. Regarding the filing of a NOD, the DOT states:
If Lender invokes the power of sale, Lender shall execute or cause
Trustee to execute a written notice of the occurrence of an event of
default and of Lenders election to cause the Property to be sold.

Exhibit 3 at 12, 23. (Emphasis added).
141. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that only the Trustee,
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY and the purported Lender, defendant DECISION ONE, had
the authority to execute a Notice of Default. See Exhibit 3 at 23.
142. The NOD does not contain any statements claiming the actual alleged Original
Lender DECISION ONE did anything to initiate the NOD.
143. The relevant language of the NOD states as follows:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: NDEx West, LLC is . . .
acting as Agent for the Trustee or Beneficiary under a Deed of
Trust dated 10/26/2006 . . .

27
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

That a breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed
of Trust is security has occurred . . .

That by reason thereof, the present beneficiary under such deed of
trust has executed and delivered to said agent, a written Declaration
of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent
such deed of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured
thereby, and has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured
thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does
hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the
obligations secured thereby.

Exhibit 4 at 2. (Emphasis added).
144. The present beneficiary is not explicitly named in the NOD, but the name
AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY is listed as the entity to contact in the section the
beneficiary is supposed to be listed in under California Civil Code 2924(c). Exhibit 4 at 2.
145. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the DOT executed
10/26/2006 was alleged to secure certain obligations in favor of Defendant DECISION ONE; the
actual purported Lender, not Defendant ASC.
146. There are no documents on record alleging that the Plaintiff ever entered into any
contractual agreement with Defendant ASC to secure any obligations in favor of Defendant
ASC.
147. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any statements claiming
Plaintiff ever executed any documents securing any obligations in favor of Defendant ASC are
false.
148. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the filing of the NOD
was and is illegal under the provisions of the DOT and California Law.
149. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Trustees Sale
Guarantee (TSG) which is the document the Note Holder generates and forwards to the

28
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Trustee for the Trustee to initiate its part of the non-judicial foreclosure process) was either
never generated, or not executed by Defendant DECISION ONE, but rather Defendant ASC or
another entity who claimed to have the required right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to
execute the TSG.
150. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the language in the
NOD of, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust has executed and delivered to said
agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said
agent such deed of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has
declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and
has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations
secured thereby, (Exhibit 4 at 2), means Defendant DECISION ONE did not execute the TSG
DECISION ONE is not even listed on the document.
151. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Endorsement/Date
Down (E/DD) (which is a continuation of the TSG), was either never generated, or was not
executed by Defendant DECISION ONE, but either Defendant ASC or another entity who
claimed to have the required right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to execute the E/DD.
152. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the language in the NOD
of, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust has executed and delivered to said agent, a
written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent such deed
of trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has declared and does
hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does
hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations secured thereby,
(Exhibit 4 at 2), means that Defendant DECISION ONE did not execute the E/DD.

29
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

153. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the entities and
individuals involved in the recording of the NOD are subject to California Penal Code 115:
115.5. (a) Every person who files any false or forged document or
instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an
encumbrance on, or places an interest secured by a mortgage or deed of
trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing
not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the document is
false or forged, is punishable, in addition to any other punishment, by a
fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).

(b) Every person who makes a false sworn statement to a notary public,
with knowledge that the statement is false, to induce the notary public to
perform an improper notorial act on an instrument or document affecting
title to, or placing an encumbrance on, real property consisting of a
single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units is
guilty of a felony.

154. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC in
concert with Defendants NDEx, SERVICELINK, Asher, and Defendants DOES 1-10, caused
the NOD to be illegally created, executed, mailed to the Plaintiff, and filed in the Inyo County
Recorders Office to illegally create the presumption that the debt alleged to be owed by the
Plaintiff in the NOD was validated.
155. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC in
concert with Defendants NDEx, SERVICELINK, Asher, and Defendants DOES 1-10, acts of
creating, executing, mailing, and causing to the NOD to be recorded in the Inyo County
Recorders Office, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California State and Federal
Law.
156. Attached to the recorded NOD is a document labeled Declaration of
Compliance. Exhibit 4 at 3.
157. The Declaration claimed that Countrywide had contacted the Plaintiff and
complied with California Civil Code 2923.5.

30
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

158. The Notice of Default Declaration was signed by Defendant China Brown who
claimed to be working for Americas Servicing Company. Id
159. The Declaration was signed and dated, but there was no verification statement
and no place or location the document was signed at.
160. The purported Declaration was a simple statement, signed and dated by
Defendant Brown.
161. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the contents of
Defendant Browns Declaration are false.
162. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that without a valid
Declaration of Compliance or Notice of Default Declaration the NOD stands in violation of
California Civil Code 2924 et seq.
(ii) THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE
163. On or about March 16, 2009, Defendant DEUTCHE with assistance from
Defendants Anne Neely, WFB, SERVICELINK and NDEx executed a Substitution of
Trustee (SOT), wherein Defendant DEUTCHE in concert with defendant WFB,
SERVICELINIK, NDEx, Asher, Brown, and DOES 1-10, substituted CHICAGO TITLE
COMPANY out as Trustee and substituted Defendant NDEx in as Trustee. Exhibit 5.
164. Defendant SERVICELINK is listed as the entity who requested the SOT to be
recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office. Defendant NDEx is listed as the entity who
requested the SOT to be returned to.
165. Defendant Asher signed the SOT on behalf of Defendant WFB who was stated
to be Defendant DEUTSCHEs "Attorney in Fact.

31
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

166. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on March 16, 2009,
when the SOT was signed and verified, Defendant DEUTSCHE was not the Beneficiary,
Creditor, Note Holder, Lender or authorized in any other manner to substitute the Trustee on
the Plaintiffs DOT.
167. This is especially important because the SOT is a document which purported to
legally substitute out CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, and substitute in Defendant
DEUTSCHEs own agent Defendant NDEx.
168. The relevant language used in the SOT states:
WHEREAS, ALYSON J. DENK was the original Trustor,
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY was the original Trustee, and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(MERS) was the original Beneficiary Recorded on 11/30/2006 as
Instrument No. 2006-0004926 . . .WHEREAS, the undersigned is the
present Beneficiary under said Deed of Trust, and WHEREAS, the
undersigned desires to substitute a new Trustee under said Deed of
Trust in place and instead of said prior Trustee.

169. The purported original lender, Defendant DECISION ONE, did not execute this
document, rather Defendant DEUTSCHE, in concert with Defendants WFB, SERVICELINK,
NDEx, Asher, and Brown executed and this document. Id.
170. Regarding the substitution of the Trustee, the DOT states:
24. Substitute Trustee. Lender, at its option, may from time to time
appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an
instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in
the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is
located. The instrument shall contain the name of the original
Lender, Trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this
Security Instrument is recorded and the name and address of the
successor trustee.

Exhibit 3 at 13, 24. (Emphasis added).

32
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

171. The name of the purported original lender is not on this document as required by
the language of the DOT, the book and page number the DOT is recorded in is not on this
document as required by the language of the DOT, and this document was not executed by the
Lender - the only entity authorized by the DOT to execute the SOT.
172. The record is devoid of any document which would give Defendant DEUTSCHE,
in concert with Defendants WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, and/or Brown the legal
authority to unilaterally substitute out the old Trustee and substitute in a new one, giving that new
Trustee the legal authority to exercise the power of sale clause in that DOT.
173. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants actions in
creating, executing and recording the SOT was illegal under California law.
creating, executing and recording the SOT violated the contractual language of the DOT.
175. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the SOT is void.
176. On April 7, 2009, the SOT was subsequently recorded in the Inyo County
Recorders Office under Document Number 2009-0000818-00. Exhibit 5.
causing the SOT to be recorded fall under the purview of California Penal Code 115.
178. On a date currently unknown to the Plaintiff, an individual or individuals who are
also currently unknown to the Plaintiff caused the SOT to be sent through the United States Postal
Service to the Plaintiff.
179. Brooke Ewing verified this fact in a sworn affidavit she executed on behalf of
Defendant NDEx on March 25, 2009. Exhibit 6.
(iii) THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

33
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

180. On March 19, 2009, Defendant MERS, FOR VALUE RECEIVED, executed a
Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust allegedly transferring all right, title and interest in the
Plaintiffs home, Together with the note or notes therein described or referred to, the money due
and to become due thereon with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of
Trust to Defendant DEUTSCHE. Exhibit 7.
181. Defendant Porter, listed himself as Assistant Secretary, and signed on behalf of
Defendant MERS on the ADOT, allegedly transferring all right, title, and interest to the Plaintiffs
DOT, (in addition to her Note), to Defendant DEUTSCHE. Id.
182. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter did not
have the authority to act on behalf of MERS in the capacity required for MERS to sell the
Plaintiffs Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE through the ADOT.
183. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter was
not an Assistant Secretary for Defendant MERS on March 19, 2009, and that the ADOT is false
and illegal because Defendant Porter lists himself as Assistant Secretary for Defendant MERS
when that was simply not true.
184. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porter
illegally signed the ADOT in the representative capacity as Assistant Secretary to aid, assist, or
help accomplish the grand scheme to defraud the Plaintiff out of her home.
185. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Porters
signature on the ADOT for Defendant MERS makes him the individual responsible for engaging
in the act of executing the ADOT to illegally produce evidence of an assignment of the Plaintiffs
Note and DOT that appeared to be valid and lawful.

34
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

186. That same day, March 19, 2009, Defendant Hernandez signed the ADOT as an
official Notary Public, licensed and bonded in the State of Texas, affixed her seal and signature to
the ADOT verifying that Defendant Porter was in fact the Assistant Secretary of Defendant
MERS.
187. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandezs
act of signing and affixing her official notorial seal to the ADOT illegally verified that Defendant
Porter did in fact possess the authority to execute a ADOT on behalf of MERS.
188. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Hernandezs
signature and seal lending authenticity to Defendant Porters signature on the ADOT for
Defendant MERS makes her legally liable to the Plaintiff for engaging in the act of verifying the
execution of the ADOT to illegally produce false evidence of an assignment of the Plaintiffs
Note and DOT that appeared to be valid and lawful.
falsely verified Defendant Porters signature.
falsely verified the ADOT in that Defendant Porter never provided her any proof that he had the
authority to execute the ADOT selling the Plaintiffs Note and DOT on behalf of MERS and to
DEUTSCHE.
191. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT falsely states
that it conveys the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT in that the document is
void, and any claimed conveyance is an absolute nullity, ab inito.
192. On April 1, 2009, the void ADOT was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders
Office as DOC # 2009-0000767-00. Id.

35
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

193. The entity listed as the entity who requested the ADOT to be recorded was
Defendant SERVICELINK.
194. The entity listed as the entity who requested the ADOT to be returned to was
Defendant NDEx.
195. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants actions
resulting in Defendant SERVICELINKS act of recording the ADOT in the Inyo County
Recorders Office on April 1, 2010, are punishable under California Penal Code 115.
resulting in Defendant SERVICELINKs act of recording the ADOT in the Inyo County
Recorders Office on April 1, 2009, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California
State and Federal Law.
197. The Plaintiffs personal records, the Inyo County Recorders Office, and the public
record compiled to date are all completely devoid of any documentation which would even
purport to give Defendant MERS the full authority to unilaterally sell ALL right title and interest
to the Plaintiffs Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.
198. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT is illegal in
that Defendant MERS could not sell the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs DOT because it
held no beneficial interest in her DOT.
199. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ADOT is illegal in
that Defendant MERS never had any right to sell the Plaintiffs Promissory Note.
200. There was no Preliminary Change of Ownership Form filed with the ADOT in
the Inyo County Recorders Office as required pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation
Code sections 480.3 and 480.4.

36
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

201. The record is devoid of any versions of the Plaintiffs Note which are indorsed
by Defendant DECISION ONE to any other entity.
202. The assignment from Defendant MERS to Defendant DEUTSCHE is the only
Assignment of Deed of Trust on file between October 26, 2010, and March 19, 2010 for the
Subject Property in the Inyo County Recorders Office.
203. The record is completely devoid of any documentation which would even purport
to give Defendant MERS the full authority to unilaterally sell ALL right title and interest to the
Plaintiffs Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.
204. Defendant MERS is, admittedly, a foreign corporation based out of Delaware.
Exhibit 3 at 2.
205. For a foreign corporation to lawfully transact business in California, it must have a
valid Certificate of Qualification issued by the California Secretary of State.
206. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that between October 26,
2010, and March 19, 2010, Defendant MERS did not have a valid Certification of Qualification
issued from the California Secretary of State.
207. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that MERS did not even
attempt to obtain a Certificate of Qualification intentionally, to remain off the radar and
continue to evade California State, local and federal taxes for its continued actions of doing
business in the State of California via executing millions of assignments FOR VALUE
RECEIVED.
208. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS act of
receiving Value in exchange for the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs DOT and Note

37
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

constitutes doing business in the State of California and requires MERS to have a valid
Certificate of Qualification to lawfully do so in California.
209. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all contracts
entered into by a foreign corporation without having a valid Certificate of Qualification issued by
the California Secretary of State are void.
(iv) THE FIRST NOTICE SALE, THE SALE, AND RESCINSION
210. On May 19, 2009, Defendant Middleton on behalf of Defendant NDEx executed a
document titled, NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE (NOTS #1). Exhibit 8.
211. Despite the loan modification negotiations, Defendants sold the Plaintiffs home
anyway. See Exhibit 9, TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE (TDUS # 1).
212. The Plaintiff then sent Defendants Asher, NDEx, and ASC a written
communication titled, NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE explaining
the illegality of the sale of her home while she was in the middle of loan modification
negotiations. Exhibit 10.
213. After Defendants realized the plain and blatant illegality of their actions,
Defendant NDEx executed and caused to be recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustees Deed
Upon sale. Exhibit 11.
214. On December 25, 2010, the Plaintiff sent to John Stumpf, CEO of Defendant
WFB, two written communications titled, NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT and LETTER
ROGATORY, respectively. Exhibit 12.
215. In those written communications, the Plaintiff stated, among other things, that:
A. She was disputing the alleged debt;
B. She was cancelling the contract due to fraud by misrepresentation;

38
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C. Providing Notice to perfect her security interest in honour for settlement;
D. She was entitled to recoupment of any and all proceeds generated from her Note
and/or Deed of Trust;
E. Defences in recoupment;
F. Claims to her instrument per UCC 3-306;
G. A claim of illegal alteration of her Note as defined by UCC 3-407(b);
H. TILA, RESPA and California Business and Professions Code Violations;
I. All loan and other documents generated from the Note and Deed and relating to the
non-judicial foreclosure process; and
J. Demand for the non-judicial foreclosure to halt.
See Exhibit 12.
(v) SECOND NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE
216. On January 13, 2010, Defendant Middleton executed a second Notice of Trustees
Sale (NOTS #2) on behalf of Defendant NDEx. Exhibit 13.
217. NOTS #2 stated:
YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED
10/26/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR
PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. IF YOU
NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A
LAWYER.

NDEX WEST, LLC, as duly appointed Trustee under and pursuant to
Deed of Trust Recorded on 11/30/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0004962
of official records in the office of the County Recorder of INYO County,
State of California . . . will sell . . . all right, title, and interest conveyed
to and now held by it under said Deed of Trust . . .

Id.

39
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

218. The DOT authorized only the Lender to substitute the trustee, and there is no
definition of duly appointed given, however, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that Defendant NDEx was not duly appointed under any legal and applicable definition
of the term, because it was substituted in by Defendant DEUTSCHE three full days before
Defendant MERS executed the ADOT, as shown above.
219. NOTS #2 also stated what the condition of the title to the property being sold
was being represented as, prior to sale:
Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, express or
implied, regarding title, possession or encumbrances. . .

Id. (Emphasis added).
220. NOTS #2 stated that the total amount of the unpaid balance plus interest, plus other
costs and expenses at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale was $323,862.09.
221. NOTS #2 also contained the following clear and conspicuous statement:
NDEx West, L.L.C. MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR
ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION
OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

222. Although Defendant NDEx clearly identified itself as a debt collector and
identified NOTS # 2 as an attempt to collect a debt, NOTS #2 failed to contain the name of the
creditor in square violation of FDCPA 809.
223. NOTS #2 also states that because of that default, the purported beneficiary can and
will sell the Plaintiffs home on January 6, 2010. Id.
224. This misrepresentation was relied upon and intended to be relied upon by the
Plaintiff, the Inyo County Recorders Office and others, and all three did so to the detriment of the
Plaintiff in that the Plaintiff was and is facing the constant threat of losing her home and being

40
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

physically evicted, the real consequence of having no home to live in because she is on a fixed
income and this entire incident has decimated her credit, and caused her an enormous amount of
mental and emotional anguish from dealing with the verbal demands for payment through a
multitude of phone calls over a period of years, a multitude of written demands for payment and
threats of consequences, stress, court trips, reading, misunderstanding intentionally confusing
documents, terms, conditions, clauses and her rights regarding such.
225. On January 18, 2010, NOTS #2 was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders
Office as Document # 2010-0000159-00.
226. Defendant SERVICELINK is listed as the entity who requested NOTS #2 to be
recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office.
227. Defendant NDEx is listed as the entity who requested the recorded NOTS #2 to be
returned to.
228. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants acts
resulting in Defendant SERVICELINKs act of recording NOTS # 2 in the Inyo County
Recorders Office on January 18, 2010, violated the contractual language of the DOT and
California State and Federal Law.
(vi) SECOND TRUSTEES SALE
229. On February 10, 2010, a second Trustees Sale took place wherein the Plaintiffs
home was acquired for $199,750.00 by the grantee, Defendant DEUTSCHE, as evidenced by
the second Trustees Deed Upon Sale (TDUS #2). See Exhibit 14.
230. Defendant DEUTSCHE was listed as the entity who was the grantee AND the
Beneficiary on TDUS #2.

41
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

231. Defendant NDEx was listed as the Trustee who conducted the non-judicial
foreclosure sale.
232. Defendant Middleton was listed as the individual who signed TDUS #2 for
Defendant NDEx on February 11, 2010, in the State of Texas.
233. On February 17, 2010, TDUS #2 was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders
Office as DOC # 2010-0000405-00.
234. The entity listed as the entity who requested TDUS #2 to be recorded was
Defendant NDEx.
resulting in Defendant NDExs act of recording TDUS #2 in the Inyo County Recorders Office
on February 17, 2010, violated the contractual language of the DOT and California State and
Federal Law.
236. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDExs
recording of TDUS #2 in the Inyo County Recorders Office was an illegal act to falsely record
documents evidencing that Defendant DEUTSCHE sold the Plaintiffs home to itself.
237. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDExs act
of recording TDUS #2 constitutes actions sufficient to constitute knowing complicity in this
scheme to defraud the Plaintiff out of her home.
238. The entity listed as the entity who requested the recorded TDUS #2 to be returned
to was Defendant DEUTSCHE.
239. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
DEUTSCHEs act of requesting the recorded TDUS #2 to be returned to it constitutes actions

42
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

sufficient to implicate Defendant DEUTSCHE in this scheme to unlawfully take the Plaintiffs
home from her.
240. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Middletons
act of signing TDUS #2 constituted an action sufficient to constitute knowing complicity in this
scheme to illegally steal the Plaintiffs home.
241. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the February 11, 2010,
TDUS #2 is false and illegal in that it states: The Grantee herein was the beneficiary when
Defendant DEUTSCHE was not the legal and legitimate beneficiary because it acquired the right,
title and interest it claimed in the Plaintiffs Note and DOT from Defendant MERS, and entity who
admittedly holds no beneficial interest in the Notes and Deeds of Trust which are recorded in its
system.
242. The real effect of a ADOT in conjunction with a Trustees Sale where the grantee
herein [is] the beneficiary is that Defendant DEUTSCHE got paid as the servicer of this
purported loan, obtained the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT for the amount
of whatever VALUE it delivered to Defendant MERS. It did not have to buy the property and it
listed itself as the beneficiary on TDUS # 2 so it did not have to pay one cent in documentary
transfer taxes. Exhibit 14.
(vii) NOTICE TO QUIT AND UD PROCESS
243. The Notice to Quit was dated March 5, 2010, and served by mail upon the Plaintiff
somewhere around that same time.
244. Based upon its illegal claims of holding title, evidenced by the illegal TDUS #2,
Defendant DEUTSCHE then filed an Unlawful Detainer Complaint against the Plaintiff herein
the Plaintiff, and Does 1-X, Inclusive.

43
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

245. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DEUTSCHE
knowingly proceeded to prosecute an Unlawful Detainer Complaint despite the fact that TDUS #
2 it based its claims of title upon is VOID, because among other reasons, Defendant
DEUTSCHEs false representations on TDUS # 2 that Defendant DEUTSCHE was the
foreclosing beneficiary.
246. The Plaintiff did manage to timely file an answer to the Unlawful Detainer
Complaint, generally denying all allegations.
247. Plaintiff has requested a stay of the Unlawful Detainer proceedings, pending the
outcome of this civil action.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS DECISION ONE, & DOES 1-10)
[Defendant Group One]
248. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein.
249. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there are other
individual, corporate, and other business entity Defendants whose names and identities are not
currently known that are responsible for this Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing cause of action, and Plaintiff therefore names those Defendants in this Cause of
Action as DOES 1-10, inclusive in Defendant Group One, and reserves the right to amend this
Complaint to later add those names when ascertained.

44
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

250. Defendant Group One enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights
of the Plaintiff during the events alleged in this Complaint and Defendant Group One, and each of
them, were required to exercise such power in good faith.
251. The Note and DOT executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One are
contractual agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One. The Note the Plaintiff
executed alleging a $304,500 loan plus interest from Defendant Group One was a simple contract,
which required an offer, acceptance and consideration in the form of said loan to be issued by
Defendant Group One, the stated "lender". However, no consideration was ever paid by
Defendant Group One, as evidenced by their own accounting records compiled pursuant to the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which will be requested during discovery.
252. Defendant Group One enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights
of the Plaintiff during the events alleged in this Complaint and Defendant Group One, and each of
them, are required to exercise such power in good faith.
253. As a result of oral and express agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant Group
One with respect to the Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, and the other benefits Defendant Group
One received from the contractual arrangement with the Plaintiff, as set forth above, and the
because of the relationship which existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Group One, the
express and implied promises made in connection therewith, and the acts, conduct and
communications which resulted in said express and implied, promises, Defendants covenanted
and promised to act in good faith toward and to deal fairly with The Plaintiff and concerning all
matters related to her Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, so as not to deprive Plaintiff of or
injure her right to receive the benefits of said relationship.

45
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

254. Defendants' unilateral action in doing the things set forth above, including but not
limited to:
(a) Drafting a false statement which was material in that it formed Defendant Group
Twos stated consideration in the Note, and deceiving the Plaintiff with it;
(b) Not putting up the required consideration as stated in violation of the contractual
language of the Note;
(c) Including unconscionable provisions in the DOT relating to the condition of the
title of Plaintiffs home upon the consummation of the Note, and upon the
reconveyance;
(d) Requiring the Plaintiff to pay back this purported loan with interest, and to put
her house up as collateral, despite the fact that Defendant Group One risked
absolutely nothing of its own in exchange for these considerations from the
Plaintiff;
(e) Intentionally deceiving and misleading the Plaintiff as to the true nature of the
language, terms, duties and responsibilities established in the Note and DOT;
(f) Assessing improper or excessive late fees;
(g) Misapplying or failing to apply the Plaintiffs payments;
(h) Failing to provide adequate monthly statement information to the Plaintiff
regarding the status of their accounts, payments owed, and/or basis for fees
assessed;
(i) Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges, that
are either not legally due under the mortgage contract or California law, or that
are in excess of amounts legally due;

46
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(j) Mishandling the Plaintiffs mortgage payments and failing to timely or properly
credit payments received, resulting in late charges, delinquencies or default;
(k) Failing to disclose the fees, costs and charges allowable under the mortgage
contract;
(l) Ignoring grace periods;
(m) Executing and recording false and misleading documents;
(n) Acting as a creditor and as a beneficiary without the legal authority to do so.
(o) engaging in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overly-aggressive loan
marketing that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair fees against
California consumers;
(p) Representing that goods or services regarding their loan program were of a
particular standard, quality, or grade, and that the goods and services were of a
particular style or model, even though they were not;
(q) Advertising goods or services regarding their mortgage loan program with
intent not to sell them as advertised;
(r) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence
of, or amounts of price reductions regarding this purported mortgage loan
transaction;
(s) Representing that the purported mortgage loan transaction confers or involves
rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are
prohibited by law;
(t) Placing the Plaintiff into the loan product without regard for other products that
might have suited the Plaintiff better;

47
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(u) Placing the Plaintiff into a loan whereby it was likely the borrower would default
or incur bankruptcy as a result of the loan and it was reasonably foreseeable that
such would occur;
(v) Fraudulently inducing borrowers to enter into the purported mortgage transaction
which was contrary to the Plaintiffs stated intentions, contrary to her interests,
and contrary to the preservation of her home,
constituted a unilateral breach of previous express and oral agreements upon which Plaintiff had
relied in entering into said relationship. Such conduct, and acts on behalf of Defendant Group
One, was wrongful, in bad faith, and unfair, and therefore a violation of each Defendant's legal
duties.
255. As a result of Defendant Group Ones breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property. The
Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees and costs, as well
as expenses to right Defendants wrongdoing.
256. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct
of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,
and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount which will be proven
at the time of trial.
257. Defendant Group Ones actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,
malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount
appropriate to punish Defendant Group One and to deter others from engaging in the same
behavior.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

48
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
(California Civil Code 2924 et seq.)

AGAINST DEFENDANTS NDEx, SERVICELINK,
DEUTSCHE, ASC,WFB, NEELY, BROWN, and DOES 1-10
[Defendant Group Two]

258. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-59 and 67-247
above, as though fully set forth herein.
A. GENERAL VIOLATION OF THE CODE
259. California Civil Code 2924 through 2924(k) provides a comprehensive
framework for the regulation of a non-judicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale
contained in a deed of trust. This comprehensive statutory scheme has three purposes: (1) to
provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting
debtor/trustor; (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure
that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide
purchaser. (Emphasis added). Melendrez v. D&I Investment, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4
th
1238, 1249-
1250 [26 Cal.Rptr. 3d 413] (2005).
260. Those California sections governing non-judicial sale shall be strictly construed.
Failure to follow the statutes means a foreclosure sale must be overturned. Read together, these
sections are clearly meant to protect borrower/consumer rights by introducing certain transparency
requirements. In other words, compliance with these sections assures that the real party in interest
(who really suffers an injury from borrowers failure to pay) is known to the borrower.
261. The non-judicial foreclosure in this case fails all three prongs.
262. Defendant DEUTSCHE purportedly purchased, for value, the right, title and
interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT from Defendant MERS, an entity used as a tax-evasion

49
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

shell to guard the multiple transfers of the Plaintiffs Note and DOT behind the scenes so to
speak, who admittedly holds no beneficial interest in either the Note or the DOT, and has never
paid a cent in California State taxes.
263. Defendant MERS, an entity who admittedly holds no beneficial interest in the
Deeds of Trust it records in its system, nor the Promissory Notes the Deeds purportedly secure,
claimed to transfer enough beneficial interest in the DOT and Note for Defendant DEUTSCHE to
presume it could exercise the power of sale clause in the DOT.
264. As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
MERS never possessed the requisite right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT to be
able to pass the requisite right, title and interest to the Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE
requisite meaning enough to exercise the power of sale clause contained within the DOT.
265. Additionally, under California State Law, specifically, California Revenue and
Taxation Code 23304.1, contracts entered into by a foreign corporation which constitute doing
business must be declared void upon any court action to obtain such a ruling, if that foreign
corporation has not paid the taxes applicable for its actions of doing business in the State of
California, as evidenced by the contract being requested to be declared void in this case, the
ADOT.
266. As a necessary consequence of this, the Trustees Sale fails to meet the first prong
because the Trustees Sale was not initiated by the true creditor/beneficiary. Rather, it was
initiated by Defendant DEUTSCHE.
267. There were a multitude of technical and other violations of 2924 which are
described with specificity in paragraphs 268-291 below. Thus, the foreclosure sale at issue could
not be conducted properly under the current statutory regime and the terms of the Note and DOT

50
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

contracts. Thus, such foreclosure was illegal, results in the Plaintiffs wrongful loss of property,
ensuring the sale fails the second and third prongs as well.
A. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE
Violation of 2924(b) and (c) The Notice Of Default
268. In California, the statutory requirements for non-judicial foreclosure must be
strictly complied with, and a trustees sale based on a statutorily deficient notice of default is
invalid. (Miller v. Cote, (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894 [179 Cal.Rptr. 753], relying on System
Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d at pp. 152-153; see also Sweatt v. Foreclosure Co.
(1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 273, 278 [212 Cal.Rptr. 350].).
269. Section 2924 requires that the notice of default must contain the ground of default
and section 2924c specifies the means for curing a default so noticed. Consistent with the notice
required by section 2924, section 2924c, subdivision (a)(1) provides the means of cure
"[whenever] . . . the principal sum of any obligation secured by deed of trust" has been declared
due "[a] by reason of default in payment of interest or of any installment of principal, or [b] by
reason of failure . . . to pay . . . taxes, assessments, [or] premiums for insurance . . . ." The trustor
may cure the default by timely payment of "the entire amount then due" plus costs and expenses
incurred in enforcing the obligation except that, with respect to principal owed, the trustor need not
pay "the portion of principal as would not then be due had no default occurred . . . ." The
consequence of such a cure is that "all [foreclosure] proceedings theretofore had or instituted shall
be dismissed or discontinued and the obligation and deed of trust . . . shall be reinstated . . . ." (
2924c, subd. (a)(1); also see Tomczak, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d at pp. 903-904.)
270. The obligation of the beneficiary to provide the trustor with an accurate accounting
of the amounts due to cure a default is governed by statute. Section 2924 specifies that a copy of

51
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the notice of default must be sent to the trustor together with "the statement specified in paragraph
(1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2924c" that the trustor may have "the legal right to bring your
account in good standing by paying all of your past due payments plus permitted costs and
expenses within the time permitted by law" and informs him that: "This amount is as of (date) .
. . ." ( 2924c, subd. (b)(1); ante, fn. 3.)
271. Thus, in California, a Trustees Sale which is based upon a Notice of Default which
contains the conditional language of if any, is a Trustees Sale which stands in violation of
2924.
272. As shown above at paragraphs 129-162, the falsely stated agent for the first falsely
stated beneficiary, Defendant ASC, declared in writing on the NOD itself that, payment has not
been made . . . TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES . . . ADVANCES, ASSESSMENTS,
FEES, AND/OR TRUSTEE FEES, IF ANY. Exhibit 5 at 2.
273. Thus, the Trustees Sale conducted by Defendant NDEx on February 10, 2010, was
predicated upon a Notice of Default which contains the conditional language of if any.
274. Referring to Cal. Civ. Code 2923.5(b) which sets forth the requirements a
foreclosing beneficiary must comply with, Defendant Brown, stated to be employed by Defendant
ASC, produced a NOTICE OF DEFAULT DECLARATION claiming that the mortgagee or
beneficiary or their authorized agent has complied with California Civil Code 2923.5(b),
specifically stating in writing that the mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent has contacted
the borrower to discus 2923.5(b). Exhibit 5 at 3.
275. The declaration does not contain the statement that it was made under penalty of
perjury as required for the Declaration to be legal under California Law.

52
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

276. Additionally, as shown by the attached declaration by the Plaintiff, the declaration
by China Brown is false.
277. The mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent of such did not contact the Plaintiff
as required by California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b).
278. As a result of Defendants gross violations of 2924(b) and (c) which render the
subsequent Trustees Sale wrongful, Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to
prosecute this action, and have incurred and will incur attorneys fees and costs in an amount to be
proven at trial.
279. Pursuant to the controlling contractual documents(s) of the Note and DOT and/or
California State Law, Federal Law, and the Plaintiffs fundamental contractual rights, Plaintiff is
entitled to recover her costs and reasonable attorneys fees as well as expenses to right Defendant
Group Ones wrongdoing.
b. Violations of 2934a - The Substitution of Trustee
280. Regarding the substitution of trustee on a deed of trust, California Civil Code
2934a provides in part that:
The trustee . . . may be substituted by the recording in the county in
which the property is located of a substitution executed and
acknowledged by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or her
successors in interest, . . . . or (B) the holders of more than 50 percent of
the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real
property . . . .(emphasis added).

281. Additionally, the language of the DOT regarding the substitution of Trustee states,
only the lender shall substitution the trustee. Exhibit 3 at 12, 23.
282. The Official Records of the Inyo County Recorders Office reveal the following:

53
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a. On November 30, 2006, the DOT was recorded naming CHICAGO
TITLE COMPANY as the Trustee. See Exhibit 3. That notarization
of the Plaintiffs signature was stated to have occurred on November
10, 2006. The DOT is bears the date of October 26, 2006. Exhibit 3 at
1.
b. On March 16, 2010, a Substitution of Trustee was executed by
Defendant DEUTSCHE, through Defendant WFB, through its agent,
Defendant Neely. The SOT substituted out the original Trustee on the
DOT, CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, and substituted in Defendant
NDEx. See Exhibit 5.
c. That same day, March 16, 2010, that SOT was recorded in the ICRO.
d. Three days after the substitution of Trustee by Defendant
DEUTSCHE, on October 26, 2009, Defendant SERVICELINK
requested the illegal SOT be filed in the Inyo County Recorders
Office, and it was recorded with under Document Number 2009-
0000818-00. Exhibit 5. In that assignment, Defendant MERS, FOR
VALUE RECEIVED purported to sell the right, title and interest to
the Plaintiffs Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE.
283. Thus, according to the ICRO and the DOT, on March 16, 2009, when the SOT was
executed and acknowledged by Defendant Neely, as agent for WFB, (who in turn was agent for
DEUTSCHE), only Defendant DECISION ONE, its successor(s) and/or assign(s) were entitled to
execute the SOT, cause that execution to be acknowledged, or record or mail that SOT.

54
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

284. At the time the SOT was executed and acknowledged by a notary public, Defendant
DEUTSCHE could not legally be considered all of the beneficiaries of the DOT, and could not
be legally considered the DOT beneficiarys successor or assign.
285. At the time the SOT was executed and acknowledged by a notary public, Defendant
DEUTSCHE was not the holder of more than 50% of the record beneficial interest of the Note
secured by the same real property.
286. In short, at the time Defendant DEUTSCHE caused the SOT to be executed and
acknowledged through its stated agent Defendant WFB and notary public Geraldine Johnson,
neither Defendant DEUTSCHE nor Defendant WFB were beneficiaries under the DOT, the
successor(s) or assign(s) of such, or holders of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial
interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property, as required by California Civil Code
2934a.
287. Based upon the dates and other information regarding the entities listed on the face
of the SOT, Defendant SERVICELINK knew or should have known that the SOT stood in
violation of 2924a and the contractual language of the DOT.
288. As a result of Defendant Group Twos illegal conduct as set forth above, the
Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property. The Plaintiff has incurred and
continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees and costs, as well as expenses to right
Defendant Group Twos wrongdoing.
289. As a result of the Defendant Group Twos actions claimed in this cause of action,
the Plaintiff has been damaged at least in the amount of her Note and home, totaling
$1,005,039.12.

55
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

290. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned illegal conduct of
Defendant Group Two, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional
distress, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount which will be
proven at the time of trial.
291. Defendant Group Twos actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,
malicious, and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to
punish Defendants and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
TO SET ASIDE UNLWAFUL TRANSFER
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERS, DEUTSCHE,
ASC, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Porter, Hernandez, and DOES 1-10)

[Defendant Group Three]

292. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-66, 67-102, and 129-
29, as though fully set forth herein.
293. According to the ICRO, there are three separate documents which list a
beneficiary on the Plaintiffs Note and DOT. First, the DOT itself, which states that DECISION
ONE is the Lender and that Defendant MERS is the beneficiary under the DOT.
294. Second is the ADOT which states that MERS transferred all right, title and interest
to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT to Defendant DEUTSCHE.
295. Third is TDUS # 2, which lists Defendant DEUTSCHE as the foreclosing
beneficiary and as the grantee of the Trustees Deed Upon Sale.
296. Supporting this fact is the statement on the face of TDUS # 2 which states that the
Documentary Transfer Tax applicable to TDUS # 2 was 0. Exhibit 14 at 1.

56
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

297. Thus, the ADOT represents a transfer of the right, title and interest to the
Plaintiffs Note and DOT sufficient for Defendant DEUTSCHE to be considered the foreclosing
beneficiary on the Plaintiffs Note and DOT.
298. Under California Law, the exchange from MERS to DEUTSCHE exchange was
supposed to be taxed and, as all other exchanges are. If Defendant MERS had been the
foreclosing beneficiary and Defendant DEUTSCHE had been the highest bidder at the Trustees
Sale, Defendant DEUTSCHE would have had to pay the applicable documentary transfer tax. By
virtue of the ADOT, Defendant DEUTSCHE was able to claim that it was the foreclosing
beneficiary as well as the grantee, therefore the applicable documentary transfer tax was ZERO.
Necessarily then, the taxable exchange took place prior to TDUS # 2 specifically, at the point of
the ADOT.
299. California Corporations Code 191 states, (a) For the purposes of Chapter 21
(commencing with Section 2100), transact intrastate business means entering into repeated and
successive transactions of its business in this state, other than interstate or foreign commerce.
300. Through various secretaries, assistant vice presidents and other titles, Defendant
MERS has executed millions of assignments of the right, title and interest to California State
homeowners Notes and Deeds of Trust, including the Plaintiffs. As such, the ADOT represents
Defendant MERS transacting intrastate business such that California State taxes were due.
301. The ADOT executed by on behalf of Defendant MERS is void under Cal. Tax &
Rev. Code 23304.5, 23305A, because Defendant MERS has not paid the requisite taxes for its
actions of doing business in the State of California, as represented by the ADOT.
302. However, the ADOT purporting to transfer all beneficial interest in the DOT is
VOID because defendant MERS allegedly received VALUE from DEUTSCHE for all the

57
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

beneficial interest MERS had under the DOT and the note or notes (i.e., doing business), and
MERS did not pay the requisite taxes for such actions of doing business.
303. Because the ADOT is void, any and all documents in the Inyo County Recorders
Office which came after the ADOT and reference the Plaintiffs DOT, including but not limited to
NOTS # 2, TDUS # 2 and the entire Unlawful Detainer action are all VOID.
304. As a result of Defendant Group Threes conduct amounting to an Unlawful
Transfer of the right, title and interest to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT as set forth above, the
Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her property.
305. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney
fees and costs, as well as expenses to right Defendant Group Threes wrongdoing.
306. As a result of the Defendant Group Threes actions claimed in this cause of
action, the Plaintiff has been damaged at least in the amount of her Note and home, totaling
$1,005,039.12.
of Defendant Group Three, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and
emotional distress, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses in an amount
which will be proven at the time of trial.
308. Defendant Group Threes actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,
malicious, wrongful and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount
appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same
behavior.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACITON
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT

58
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERS, DEUTSCHE, WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher,
Porter, Neely, Hernandez, and DOES 1-10)

[Defendant Group Four]

309. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-66, 67-98, 103-247
above, as though fully set forth herein.
310. The Note and DOT documents constitute contracts formed by and between the
Plaintiff and DECISION ONE.
311. The Note and DOT contracts themselves have set contractual language that defines
the rights, obligations and authority of both the Plaintiff and DECISION ONE.
312. 6(c) of the Note allows only the Note Holder to declare the Plaintiff in
default. Likewise, 23 of the DOT allows only the Lender to substitute the Trustee on the
DOT. While California State Law may allow for other entities and parties to substitute the
Trustee, the contractual language of the Note and DOT allow only specific parties: the Note
Holder and the Lender. Any other entity or party taking the actions described as being within
the sole purview of the Note Holder and/or the Lender must necessarily constitute tortuous
interference with the Note and/or DOT contracts.
313. Defendant EMC and MERS actions as described above regarding the execution,
recording and mailing of the NOD and the ADOT, constitute tortuous interference of the
contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and
Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT.
314. Defendant DEUTSCHEs actions as described above regarding the ADOT, SOT,
both NOTSs, both TDUSs, and the Unlawful Detainer action, and constitute tortuous interference

59
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of the contractual language of the December 23, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and
Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT.
315. Defendant ASCs actions as described above regarding the NOTICE OF
DEFAULT DECLARATION, and DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE, constitute tortuous
interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the
Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 1 and 6(c) of the Note and 22 and 24 of
the DOT.
316. Defendant NDExs actions as described above regarding the execution, recording,
and/or mailing of the NOD, SOT and the ADOT, both NOTSs and both TDUSs constitute
tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note
between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT and
1 and 6(c) of the Note.
317. Defendant SERVICELINKs actions as described above regarding the execution
and recording in the Inyo County Recorders Office of the NOD, SOT and the ADOT, both
NOTSs and both TDUSs constitute tortuous interference of the contractual language of the
October 26, 2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE,
specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT and 1 and 6(c) of the Note.
318. Defendant WFBs actions as described above regarding the SOT constitutes
tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and Note between
the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT.
319. Defendant Ashers actions as described above regarding the execution of the NOD
constitutes tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and the

60
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT
and 1 and 6(c) of the Note.
320. Defendant Neely actions as described above regarding the execution of the SOT
constitutes tortuous interference of the contractual language of the October 26, 2006, DOT and
Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22 and 24 of the DOT.
321. Defendant Middletons actions as described above regarding the both NOTSs and
both TDUSs constitute tortuous interference of the contractual language of the December 23,
2006, DOT and the Note between the Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE, specifically 22
and 24 of the DOT and 1 and 6(c) of the Note.
322. Defendant DOES 1-10 acted principally or in the capacity of an aider and abettor to
facilitate and complete the above described actions and results, and the Plaintiff reserves the right
to later amend her complaint when those parties along with their specific conduct have been
ascertained.
323. As a result of the Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional
transgressions which squarely violate the contractual language of the Note and DOT between the
Plaintiff and Defendant DECISION ONE as set forth above, the Defendants conduct must be
considered sufficient to be described as tortuous interference with a contract, as Plaintiff has
suffered a multitude of mental, emotional, psychological injuries and injuries to a multitude of her
rights, including but not limited to her right to the use and enjoyment of her property without the
unconscionable threat of losing her property.
324. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney fees
and costs, as well as expenses to right the Defendants wrongdoing.

61
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

325. As a result of the Defendant Group Fours actions claimed in this cause of action,
$1,005,039.12.
326. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of
the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,
327. Defendant Group Fours actions in this matter have been willful, knowing,
malicious, illegal and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate
to punish The Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same
behavior.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
(15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.)

AGAINST DEFENDANTS DEUTSCHE, ASC, WFB,
SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, Brown, Porter, Neely, Johnson,
Hernandez, Middleton and DOES 1-10
(DEFENDANT GROUP FIVE)
328. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
329. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that Defendants,
DEUTSCHE, ASC, WFB, SERVICELINK, NDEx, Asher, Porter, Neely, Hernandez, and DOES
1-10 were purporting to act as mortgage servicers, or the agents of such with regard to the
Plaintiffs Note and DOT. However, except for Defendant MERS, all these entities and persons
purported to acquire said positions with respect to the Plaintiffs Note and DOT AFTER THE

62
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PURPORTED DEFAULT BY THE PLAINTIFF, bringing all defendants squarely under the
purview of Title 15 U.S.C. 1692 et. seq., better known as The Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, (FDCPA)
330. Neither the actual beneficiary nor the actual creditor are explicitly listed on the
NOD.
331. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NODs failure to
contain the name of the actual creditor stands in violation of FDCPA 809.
332. Regarding information required pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, the NOD stated:
. . . unless the obligation being foreclosed upon or a separate
written agreement between you and your creditor permits a
longer period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of
your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your
creditor.

To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment
to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for
any other reason, contact:

AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY
c/o NDEx West, LLC
15000 Surveyor boulevard, Suite 500
(866) 795-1852

333. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC was
not the creditor on the alleged loan The Plaintiff is claimed to have defaulted on in the NOD.
334. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC is
illegally implied to be the creditor on the NOD.

63
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

335. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that neither Defendant
NDEx nor Defendant ASC were the actual creditor at the time the NOD was executed, nor at
the time the NOD was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office.
336. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that because neither
Defendant NDEx nor Defendant ASC nor any other named defendants were the creditor at the
time the NOD was executed or at the time it was recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office,
the demand for payment in the NOD was a illegal attempt to wrongfully obtain money from the
Plaintiff, made with the threat of taking away her home backing that extortion attempt up.
337. The NOD listed the amount of $10,208.99 as the amount requested, and Plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that none of the defendants alleged responsible for this
cause of action had any authority or right to request any sum from the Plaintiff, especially the
completely arbitrary and fictional amount of $10,208.99.
338. The Plaintiff therefore is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the listing
of $10,208.99 in the NOD violated 806-809, 812, and 813 of the FDCPA
339. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the incurable clause of
if any, included in the NOD in a self-stated attempt to collect a debt violates 806-809, 812
and 813 of the FDCPA.
340. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEXs
actions of recording the NOD in the Inyo County Recorders Office official records violated
806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813 of the FDCPA
341. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ASC and
Defendant NDEX caused the NOD to be illegally filed in the Inyo County Recorders Office to

64
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

illegally create the presumption that the debt alleged to be owed by The Plaintiff in the NOD
was validated in violation 809 of the FDCPA.
342. The present beneficiary is not explicitly named in the NOD, but the name
AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY is listed as the entity to contact in the section the
beneficiary is supposed to be listed in under California Civil Code 2924(c). Exhibit 5 at 2.
343. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this misrepresentation
violated FDCPA 806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813.
344. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any statements claiming
Plaintiff ever executed any documents securing any obligations in favor of ASC are false.
345. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the filing of the NOD
was and is illegal under FDCPA 806, 807, 808, 809, 812, and 813.
346. On numerous occasions, in connection with the collection of an alleged debt,
when the Plaintiff notified Defendants in writing within the (30) day period described in
809(a) of the FDCP A, 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a), that the debt, or any portion thereof, was
disputed, Defendants have continued to attempt to collect the debt before verification of the
debt was provided to the consumer, in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCP A, 15 U.S.C.
1692g(b). See Exhibits 10 and 16.
347. NOTS # 2 stated:
YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED
10/26/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR
PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. IF YOU
NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A
LAWYER.
NDEX WEST, LLC, as duly appointed trustee . . . WILL SELL AT
PUBLIC AUCTION . . .

Id.

65
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

348. The Plaintiff asserts that the phrase YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED
OF TRUST, DATED 10/26/2006 is a misleading statement in violation of FDCPA 806-809,
812, and 813.
349. Additionally, the DOT authorized only the Lender to substitute the trustee, and
there is no definition of duly appointed given, however, Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that Defendant NDEX was not duly appointed under any legal and applicable
definition of the term, because it was substituted in by Defendant DEUTSCHE, as shown above.
350. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant NDEx had no
authority from the actual creditor to even execute NOTS # 2 and attempt to collect a debt
from the Plaintiff, thus, executing, mailing and recording NOTS # 2 violated FDCPA 806-809,
812, and 813.
351. NOTS # 2 also contained the following clear and conspicuous statement:
NDEx West, LLC is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Any
information obtained will be used for that purpose.

352. Although Defendant NDEx clearly identified itself as a debt collector and
identified NOTS # 2 as an attempt to collect a debt, NOTS # 2 failed to contain the name of the
creditor in square violation of FDCPA 809.
353. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group
Four engaged in acts resulting in violations of FDCPA 806-809, 812, and 813.
354. As a result of Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional violations of
the FDCPA as set forth above, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and the threat of losing her
property.

66
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

355. The Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal fees, including attorney
fees and costs, as well as expenses to right Defendants wrongdoing.
of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, worry, mental, physical and emotional distress,
malicious, illegal and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount
appropriate to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from engaging in the same
behavior.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT, RIGHT
TO CURE AND ACCELERATION NOTICE
(Violation of 12 U.S. C. 2601 et seq., 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.
and Title 12 C.F.R., 226.18, California Civil Code 2924 et seq.)

[AGAINST DEFENDANT GROUP FOUR]

358.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations
contained herein as though fully set forth in full.

359. As stated more specifically in paragraphs 67-98, 103-128 and 129-162, supra,
Defendant Group Four has further failed to give proper notice of Notice of Default and Right to
Cure and acceleration of the loan transaction as required by 12 U.S. C. 2601 et seq., 15 U.S.C.
1601, et seq. and Title 12 C.F.R., 226.18, California Civil Code 2924 et seq.
360. Plaintiff is specifically in the class of persons this statute was designed to protect.

67
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

361. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant Group Fours failure as
described herein, Plaintiff is subject to loss of property and loss of use of property and other
damages.
362.
As a result of the Defendant Group Fours actions claimed in this cause of action,
$1,005,039.12.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETETION LAW
(California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

363. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
364. As more fully described above, the Defendants acts and practices are likely to
deceive, constituting an illegal business act or practice. This conduct is ongoing and continues to
this date.
365. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices with respect
to mortgage loan servicing, assignments of notes and deeds of trust, foreclosure of residential
properties and related matters by:
(a) Including unconscionable provisions in the DOT relating to the condition of the title
of Plaintiffs home upon the consummation of the Note and DOT contracts, and
upon the reconveyance;

68
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(b) Requiring the Plaintiff to pay back this purported loan with interest, and to put her
house up as collateral, despite the fact that Defendant Group One risked absolutely
nothing of its own in exchange for these considerations from the Plaintiff;
(c) Intentionally deceiving and misleading the Plaintiff as to the true nature of the
language, terms, duties and responsibilities established in the Note and DOT;
(d) Assessing improper or excessive late fees;
(e) Improperly characterizing the Plaintiffs account as being in default or delinquent
status to generate unwarranted fees;
(f) Improperly characterizing the Plaintiffs account as being in default or delinquent
status to collect insurance payments, take advantage of credit default swaps, and
other monetary generating avenues;
(g) Instituting improper or premature foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted
fees;
(h) Instituting improper or premature foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted
insurance payments;
(i) Misapplying or failing to apply the Plaintiffs payments;
(j) Failing to provide adequate monthly statement information to the Plaintiff regarding
the status of their accounts, payments owed, and/or basis for fees assessed;
(k) Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges, that are
either not legally due under the mortgage contract or California law, or that are in
excess of amounts legally due;
(l) Mishandling the Plaintiffs mortgage payments and failing to timely or properly
credit payments received, resulting in late charges, delinquencies or default;

69
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(m) Treating the Plaintiff as though she were in default on her purported loan even
though the she tendered timely and sufficient payments or had otherwise complied
with mortgage requirements or California law;
(n) Failing to disclose the fees, costs and charges allowable under the mortgage contract;
(o) Ignoring grace periods;
(p) Executing and recording false and misleading documents in the ICRO;
(q) Acting as creditors, beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority to do so.
(r) engaging in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overly-aggressive servicing
that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair fees against California
consumers;
(s) Acting as the beneficiary, creditor and the Trustee in the Plaintiffs Note and DOT
without the legal authority to do so.
(t) Theft of Plaintiffs property on a void security interest;
(u) Theft of Plaintiffs property on a void security interest, repossession of which they
are not in possession nor otherwise entitled to payment;
(v) Using unfair and unconscionable means in an attempt to collect a debt via execution,
mailing and recording of the NOD, execution, acknowledgment, mailing and
recording of the SOT, execution, acknowledgment, mailing and recording of the
ADOT, execution, mailing and recording of NOTS # 2, execution, acknowledgment,
mailing and recording of TDUS # 2, execution and mailing of the 3-day Notice to
Quit, malicious prosecution of the Unlawful Detainer civil case against the Plaintiff
in a concerted effort to steal the Plaintiffs home;

70
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(w) Representing that goods or services in the form of a refinance loan product were of a
particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model,
if they are of another;
(x) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertise;
(y) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of,
or amounts of price reductions and/or conditions and clauses in the Note and DOT
contracts;
(z) Representing that the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust transaction between
Defendant Group One confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it
does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law;
366. Additionally, Defendant NDExs actions as described above regarding the NOD,
SOT, ADOT, both NOTSs, and both TDUSs constitute unlawful business acts and practices
which violate 17200 et seq.
367. Defendant ASCs actions as described above regarding the NOD constitute
unlawful business acts and practices which violate 17200 et seq.
368. Defendant DEUTSCHEs actions as described above regarding the ADOT, SOT,
both NOTSs, and both TDUSs constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate
17200 et seq.
369. Defendant WFBs actions as described above regarding the SOT constitute
unlawful business acts and practices which violate 17200 et seq.
370. Defendant MERS actions as described above regarding the NOD, SOT, and
especially ADOT constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate 17200 et seq.

71
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

371. Defendants Porter, Asher, Neely, Hernandez, Middleton, and DOES 1-10 are
individuals who engaged in actions on behalf of the Defendants which are companies or
corporations, and those individuals actions regarding the NOD, SOT, ADOT, both NOTSs and
both TDUSs constitute unlawful business acts and practices which violate 17200 et seq.
372. As a result of the Defendants numerous, gross, malicious and intentional unlawful
business acts and practices described in this Complaint, the Defendants conduct must be
considered sufficient to be described as violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, as Plaintiff has
suffered a multitude of mental, emotional, psychological injuries and injuries to a multitude of her
rights, including but not limited to her right to the use and enjoyment of her property without the
unconscionable threat of losing her property.
374. As a result of the Defendant Group Fours actions claimed in this cause of action,
$1,005,039.12.
376. Defendants actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious, and
oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish The
Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

72
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17500
(AGAINST DEFENDANT GROUP FOUR)
377. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all paragraphs above as if
fully reproduced herein.
378. California Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq. prohibits the making of a
statement or a publication or declaration concerning any circumstances or matter of fact connected
with the proposed performance or disposition of real or personal property, which pronouncement is
untrue or misleading, and which if known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be
known, to be untrue or misleading.
379. The facts are undisputed that Defendant DEUTSCHE, ASC, SERVICELINK,
NDEx, Middleton, and DOES 1-10 did published the NOD, two separate NOTSs and two separate
TDUSs regarding the alleged default of the Plaintiff, and Defendant Group Fours actions in
providing notice to the public that the Property subject to the Deed of Trust would be sold at public
auction to satisfy the secured obligation regarding the Property. Subsequent to that, Defendant
Group Four actually held a Trustees Sale for the Plaintiffs home.
380. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group
Four deceived the public in the NOD, the SOT, both NOTS and both TDUSs claim the
Defendants were the beneficiary, creditor, and/or Note Holder, and or had the power to sell the
Property when lacking such ownership and power as alleged throughout the complaint in all
preceding paragraphs above.
381. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Group Four
drafted, mailed and recorded a NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE, twice, (as specified in paragraphs
210 & 216-228, supra), and that this statement (NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE) and those

73
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

statements connected with it, in connection with the sale of personal property which were untrue or
misleading and means the Defendants had knew, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, to be untrue or misleading by said Defendants, each and every one of them.
Four intended the general public to rely on their misstatements and have the Plaintiffs Property be
sold at Auction. The Plaintiff reasonably relied on these misrepresentations, by now filing suit and
requesting a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Fours alleged business practice(s) stated within this cause of action based on Cal. Civ. Code
17500 are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to the Plaintiff,
and requires the Court to weigh the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the
harm to Plaintiff.
384. Plaintiffs request for relief is the return of all funds received by each and every
Defendant from the Plaintiff as a request for restitution relief as allowed under 17203.
385. The UCL authorizes injunctive relief to prevent unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
business acts or practices, and both restitution and disgorgement of money or property wrongfully
obtained by means of such unfair competition, (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17203).
386. Plaintiff requests that this Court have the Preliminary Injunction become permanent
to prevent the re-occurring of the violation of the UCL against the non-judicial foreclosure pending
against the Plaintiff by Defendant Group Four.

74
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

malicious, and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to
punish the Defendants and deter the Defendants and others from engaging in the same behavior
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them,
jointly and severally, as follows:
A. For an order from this court that the Assignment of Deed of Trust from Defendant MERS
to Defendant DECISION ONE recorded in the Inyo County Recorders Office on March
19, 2009, as Document Number 2009-0000767-00 be set aside and voided because
Defendant MERS had not complied with the requisite California Law required for a foreign
corporation to do business in this State;
B. For an order from this court that the Notice of Default and Election to Sell recorded in the
Inyo County Recorders Office on February 18, 2009, as Document Number 2009-
0000359-00 be set aside and declared void;
C. For an order from this court that the Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Inyo County
Recorders Office April 7, 2009, as Document Number 2009-0000818-00 be set aside and
declared void;
D. For an order from this court that the Notice of Trustees Sale recorded in the Inyo County
Recorders Office on January 18, 2010 as Document Number 2009-0000159-00 be set
aside and declared void;

75
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

E. For an order from this court that the Trustees Deed Upon Sale recorded in the Inyo County
Recorders Office on February 17, 2010, as Document Number 2010-0000-405-00 be set
aside and declared void;
F. As a result of Defendants aforesaid violations, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in an
amount not less than $200.00 and up to $2,000.00, for each and every so stated applicable
statutory violation;
G. Damages as a result of the aforementioned violations, to be fixed and awarded by the
Court;
H. Damages for the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in the amount of $4,000.00 for
each and every violation;
I. Damages in the amount of three times the interest paid and clear title to the property
stemming from the usurious interest;
J. Judgment against Defendants for return of the down payment, and other payments, as well
as interest on the above amount;
K. Cost of litigation as provided in Title 15 United States Code, Section 1601 et. seq.;
L. An injunction to enjoin defendants from keeping relevant documents including but not
limited to the complete loan package, and to forward all relevant foreclosure documents to
the defendant;
M. For an order enjoining Defendant DEUTSCHE from selling, encumbering, or disposing of
the real property described in paragraph 1 of this complaint;
N. For an Order rescinding the non-judicial foreclosure of the property and restores both title
and possession to the Plaintiff;
O. For an Order from the Court Quieting Title on the Subject Property against Defendants,

76
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

and each of them;
P. For actual damages according to proof;
Q. For compensatory damages as permitted by law;
R. For consequential damages as permitted by law;
S. For statutory damages as permitted by law;
T. For punitive damages as permitted by law;
U. For damages in an amount to be determined at a jury trial;
V. For rescission;
W. For restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained as a result of their
unfair competition;
X. For reasonable attorneys fees and costs;
Y. For Declaratory Relief; and
Z. For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem fair equitable and just.

DATED: April 19, 2011. LAW OFFICES OF EMMANUEL F. FOBI

By:____________________________________
EMMANUEL F. FOBI
Attorney for the Plaintiff

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff requests that the trial in this case be by jury.

By:____________________________________
EMMANUEL F. FOBI
Attorney for the Plaintiff

77
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

VERIFICATION
I, Savannah Ally Jackson, am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge,
expect as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the County of
_____________________, State of California.

Dated: April 19, 2011. By:___________________________________
Plaintiff

EXHIBIT LIST

SAVANNAH JACKSON V. DECISION ONE, ET AL
Case No: SI CV CV 1051088

EXHIBIT 1 - PROMISSORY NOTE

EXHIBIT 2 - PREPAYMENT RIDER

EXHIBIT 3 - DEED OF TRUST

EXHIBIT 4 - NOTICE OF DEFAULT

EXHIBIT 5 - SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE

EXHIBIT 6 - AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF SOT

EXHIBIT 7 - ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

EXHIBIT 8 - NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE # 1

EXHIBIT 9 - TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE # 1

EXHIBIT 10 - NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE

EXHIBIT 11 - RECISSION OF TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE

EXHIBIT 12 - NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT AND LETTER ROGATORY

EXHIBIT 13 - NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE # 2

EXHIBIT 14 - TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE # 2

EXHIBIT 1
PROMISSORY NOTE

NOTE
.1.!!!!1 BISHOP
ICWy]
4116 NORTH 2Jl.1) STREET. CALIFOR/lo1" 93514
ll'l<lpcny .-.-...]
I . BORKOWER'S TO PAY
In ,elUrD for _loan lhalllgve received. I promise 10 pay U.S. $304,500.00 (Ihla UIlOUIlI is called "PrincijW'), plus
inww, 10 tho order of tile Leader, The Lender is 0 .. <101011 ODe C_pany, LLC. I wiD make all paywenu
Wldu !his Nace in Ibe fonn of cub, cbcck or rnooey order.
I IIIIIknWId tIw tbe LcncIer may IWISfu IhiI Tho LcncIer or anyone wbo I.akea Ibis Noce by uaosfer and wbo
is eoWJcd ... rrai,"C pa)'llltW "*' IIIiI Noxt ill alled tbo ' Note HoIdu.
,. """"""
I"", ........ ill be on WlpIid priatipal W'IIiI tho full _of PriDcipllllli beeo paid. I wiU ply irAcr ... :u.
yeuly nit 01 '.62'10.
The irw:r ... raIC: mjWted by IlW Scaloo 2 is tbo raIC: I will pay 00Ib before aod after Ill)' dcf",," described in Seclion
6(8) oflhil NOlet
3. PAYMNrS
(AI Ttmt ... d PliI<;e of P&yaWIIi
I will PO), priDtipil and inter", by makin& I paymelll eve'Y molllh.
! will make my molllhly Plymelll on 1M 1ST day of u.cb momb bclinnin& on JAA'lJAKY I , 2007. I will m&ke
cvny Il1Omb WIliJ I have paid all of tbo priDtipll and iI\Le,C$I ltd an)' O\lIer clw.n4cacribed below tba!!II\IIY
owe under !his NOlet lIIUDIhIy paymelll wiD be IpplicDISer!his Note. I will pay IhosoI: amounu; in full on
thai date, wblcb is the "Marurily o.tc,.
I will II:I:lU my mtQhIy p.oymellllll 3023 i lSBC WIJ'. Fori Mill, Soutll CvoI.la>I 29115 or III diffcrclll plK.c if
by Iho NoIe Holder.
(8) Amou.al or M"",l.hIy Psy ...... "
My IDDI'llhIy payma>l will be i111be a/lIOWlt or u,s, $1,948.75.
". BORROWfJI.'S RIGHT TO PII.PAY
I !lit rigbl 10 make jIIIYQll:lll$ of l'rillc:ipaI ill any time befon:!bey arc dut . A paymonr of l'rincipaJ only is
knoW1l as I Wbell [ maJ;;e I Prepaymem. [will leU tbe NOIC Holder ill writln& \hall am doina.o. I may
not I Plymolll as I PrepaymtDI ifllllvc DDt made ill Ibc wonrhly payrDemt dut WIder !be NOIe.
I may mal:e f\lll Prepaymonr or panill Prt:nymeru witbout payinj I Prepaymem clwac. The NOIe Holder will
USC my Prcpaymcms 10 red," !be aulOWlI of f' rillc:ip&l1l\I! I owe Ihls Note. HOwe'/cr. lbe Nou: Hol4er!my apply
my Prepaymtnr 10 the oa:rued aod WIj)iid onlbe f'repaymcnr amoIIOI. before IWlyu., my I'rcpaymonr 10 .ed,"
lbe 1'rillc:ip&l1WOlWl of Ibc NOlI:. If I m:W. panill "Prepo.ymc.oI. Ibcre will be DO ehao&I5 ill tho! due date 0. ill tho! amounr
of my mImlbly payment WIleN tho! NOIC Holder'area ill wrilin& 10 tbose chanaa.
5. LOAN CHARGES
If I Law. which applia 10 !his loaD and wtUo:h $eU maaimum loaD is fmally thai !be inlerQl or
otbet loan dluaa COUeaed or 10 be collected wilb!his loan eueed Ihf peI'IlliMd limiD. !beD: such
lola clW'lc ib.aU be redlad by !be _ PCetIWy 10 raWte!be dluaelO!he permiaod limit: aod (b) III)' iWIIS aJreidy
ooUec\ecl from me wbEh eu:eaIed pamiII(I(I I.irniq will be rdun;!ed 10 me. The Noce Holder .... y dIoose 10 make !his
refu.rad by mu.:iIIi tile Principal I owe WIder !his Nou: or by IIIlk.ina: din(t 10 lilt. If I tdund redllCCS
f'JincipaJ. !be red..:tiQp will be trwcd as I p.onW f'n:paymeDI.
6. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED
(A) Lale Char&e COl' (hudl>C Ps)'lUt'lIl
If !be NOIe Hoklu has not received die full aDlDWlI of auy wolllhly paymeol by die end of TEN calelldar d<lys dler
!he dalC! il a due. I will pay cIw,e 10 !he NOIC Holder . The aDlDWlI oflhc chata. will be 6.0 '" (but IlOI Iw lhaD
$5.00) uf my OV.NIIe paymem of pr\II:lpaIlIIKI I WIll pay thIS Lale clivi. promptly bul only on:;c 00 eaeb \ale
paymcnr..
(8 ) lldlI.ull
If I do DDt pay tho: full_ of Q<;b womhly 011 !be dale iI a due. I will be III dcfauJl.
(e) Sotb: o! Dcl':uIl:
If I am ill defaull. !be Noce KoIdcr may lend me I wrineo IIOtice \C!llina "",!hit it I do DOt pay !be overdue arnowx
by I "fWn date. !be NOIe Holder IDly require me 10 pay immedialcly !be full _ of Principal wbiclIlw DDt bwl
. IK)toI.u .... utoS XJtiHTTU I'KU''' Y
I hI'"t lilt ri&IK 10 IIloile pI)1iIeIlU of 1'nIIc:;piI " iI:JY DCII: before dIty M1: D . "pI)-mel:II of PnIDpiI 0IIlf.
kIKvIoll as I "P'repa)'lIIClL' Wbco I miU I i'rrpl)lDrIIl. I orill tdlliIe iD ........ !h:JI11ID..,... 'O. I . y
DOt a pa)'lDI':I:Il as I if I _made III lilt IDDrIIhIy pI)'IDUD dw \IDdu
! make I full 1'rqNo)'I:IeflI Of patiIJ f'l'Cl)f.)'I!IIIW wDout ply ... I dw,t . The: Noxtc Holder will
my PrcpaymwlS \0 ,educe Iho IfDI)WII of tIIolt I UIIOW !his Now. HQ\Io'C""t r, Iho Nou: may apply
my J>rtpl)1IIeIII CD Iho aM WIpIicI Inwac on Iho Prepa)'lDtlllIlDClWll, before &ppIYiaa my f'l'ep.lymoill. 10 ,educe
!be PriDoipalllDClWll of !be 1'0,*. If I make p&ni&I Prllplymtllt. !ben: will be II<) chan&el iD tho! due date Or iD tho! amounI
of my IJIDruhly pa)'llll!Zll un\go "'" NI)I$ Holder oar_ ;., wririna ro rho .. Chanall.
5. LOAN CHARGES
If I Law. whio;h ljIpliQ ro IhiJ lour and which KII maximwu lour clw,e., is fuWly irutrplCle<i thac !be inlcrUL 01
odie. lour char,"" coUccled or CD be wlleaed ID IIIIOIIfCljoO with this lou the permin.cd limilS. then: (I ) lIlY IIICII
lour clw&e Ihill be reduo:td by the ImOIIilIlII!I:eW.ry CD reduce the char,t IQ the pc:rmin.cd limil: aM (II) any IWIlI
col\c(te(i from me \lr1lich permiUb1 IimilI will be rel\uxled 10 me. Tbe Nou: Holder 10 mab: this
refwld by rcducioJ the Principal I owe uMu !his Nou: or by IIIiItiD& direct plymeol CD me. If I refund rtduc:es
Princ:ipaI. the reduaioo will be bUlCd u. panill Prcpa)'lllt:Dl.
6. 8ORROW1l.' S FAlLUlU: TO PAY ASREQUlRED
(A) Lau Clwte for Ovmllit PIJ"DlalIi
If lilt Note Holder bas DOl the M11m011111 of Ill)' lllD;DIhIy JIIIymenl by the of TEN
the cUre it is due. [will. JIIIY.1Ite cIwac 10 the Note HoJdc1. The: mount of the cIw" will be 6.0 '10 (but DOt Jess thaD
" .00) of my overdue plYIIleDl of princ:ipalloIld. inlerw. I will pay this late chu,e plOnlplly but only 0'" OD o:..::h Late
Jlll)'meDl.
(B) Derault
If I dollOl pay !he ful l amount of IliCIr lIIOIIthly plymelll 011 the.we il is due. I wUJ be iD dcfaull.
(C) NoUee c! Odaulr
If I am ;., dcfauli, the NoIe Holder may KIltlIDt a ","lWI rIOIice "'" tIw if I do rIOI poy!he overdue amoU!U
by , ecrWn .we, <be N_ Holder may require me ro pay immcd.Wely the I\IU of PriDoipol wl\iI;b Iw !IOl been
paid IoIld. aU the iPluest that I 0-.,-.: OD d:w IIDDWII . That chIC = be:U low! 30 dIIYllfter <be OIl which !he IIOlice is
mailed 10 me or delivered by acbu _ .
{OJ No Waba By NoI.c Holder
E .... II if, :u, IiI:m ",ben I om iD dcbuli. !he Note Holder does rIOI requirc me: 10 pay immedimly iD full as deocribed
abcrie, lilt NoIe Holder will JIill the ri&bl1O dolO if I am ill clef ..... " a Iller tiaIe,
MULTISTATE FIXED RATE NOTE-SilII;lc FllIIily-.'&IlIlIo MatlFnddie Mac USU'OR.\I L'\STRlr.>IE.'T .o<m )100 11(11
I of 1 P"l"i
III 111011 nUim I!! IIlI W II
) hyma" Note 11010'1 eo..u and EIIptaIia
If !he NOie Holder Ius required me 10 pay immediately ill fuU u described above, !he Note Holder will have !he ,;,bl
10 be paid by me for ill of its COiU J.Od ill enfon:ina!his NOIe 10 !be UItIU IlOl protlibiltd by applW;,b1c:
law, Tbo$C: inr;ludI:, for eumpie, reasonable auomey, ' fees,
1, GIVIS"" ..IFNOTICS
UnIqo IIppliQble II.w a diffucllI metlo>d, lUI;)' DOti;c: Ihallll\ll.l be ,r.-en 10 me WIdet!his No!e wiD be ,iven
by deliverina or by mailiDa;1 by flm cWs mail II> me al!be PTopeny Addreu above Of 1111 different add,us if I ,ive
tbo: Nocc Holder I DOliu of Ill)' diffcUlll add'HI .
Any Dllliu WI anw be ,iven w!he NOb! Holdef UDder !his NOIC will be liven by deliver\n& it or by mailiD& ic by
fin! cWs mail 10 llle Noel: Holder AI !he oddress lIMed ill Stction 3(A) above or. I ditferClll oddress if I iW ,iven I
IlIIIke of Ihal differelll addreu.
8. OBUGATlONS PERSONS UNDER TIns NOTE
If more !han one lips this NOIt, peflOQ is fuUy J.Od personally oblipled w k=p ill of the promisel
made in inl;:ludina!he promise 10 pay !he fulllDlOUllll ov.oed. AIry penwI wIlD ila ,lW'&DIOr, .... tI)' or mcIonef
of this NOie is abo oblill!oed 10 do Ibese 1IIin&a. July penoa whD!aka over 11-= obJip1iom, ineludiDa till: oblipiom of
,uanruor, !.UreI)' or of !his Nou:, is lo/w obH,lICd 10 Yep ill of till: promises made in !his NOie. The NOIc
Holder may enforce iu riahU UDder !his NOIe lplnst eacb peflOn i!ldividually 0, aa:airw ill of W lO,e!her. This mUN
IIw any one of w may be required 10 pay &Il of m.: IWOWlU ov.al UDder !his NOie.
9. WAlVRS
I lI'III any ocher penon who Ius UDder !his Note ....aive \be rigIIB of PrescDlllll:81 a.od NOla of DisbcmOf .
"P're5enDDelll" muns rho ria.IU 10 reqllire the Nou: Holder 10 demaDCI PlymeDt of amounu due, "Notice of Oiihooo,"
me&III the ri&hz 10 reqWrc Iho Note Holder 10 ,ive CIOlicc 10 ocbet peflOlIIllw aolOI.IlIII due ha ... e DIll been paid,
10. lr.'o"lFORM SECUJI.F.D N01'1:::
This 1'10lIl is llDiform imlnImtaI with lirniled variatiom in iOIDI: jurisdiaiom. In addiclon 10 \be protectiolll aiven
10 the NOIe Holder under !his Nw. a MOf1iIae, Deed ofTrusl. Of Security Deed (Iho "Scc:urily 1RSU'WllC1lI ") , da!oed the
<ame dale u chis Nou:, proLIICU ibc Nolt Holder from pcwible iouel ""tIich mlJht resull if Ilia no< keep Iho promi>el
IIIhkb 1 m;e in 1M Nw. Tlw Security IIIIlNI1lt8I describes how a.od UDder wtut condiliom I "",y be mjuired 10 mW:
immediate payment in fuU of ill &IOOWIU I 0'0'C WIder !his fobc. Some of chose O3IIdiUoOl :w dcseribcd u follows,
If aU Of any pan of Iho Propaty or lUI;)' in Iho Property is 50Id or I .. mfmed (or if Borrower is
DIll a IlIlU1&I pe:tlOD IlOd I bmtrlCw iDlcre51 in Borro....:r is sold Of !l"ansferrecl) ""ithoul Lender', prior wtiCleD
consenc, Lender lWIy requite immedlalc in Ml of ill IUlI>S _urcd by cbio Security loalnll"l\enc,
However. cbio oJ)tion w...u IlOl be e.un:iacd by I..codet If $\IC:b ..... is prohlbilal by Applicable Lo .....
If t.e.>dcr !his opQorl. Lc:nder Wli live Bort'O""tl" IIOlica of occ.c:leraliol1. The IIOIiI;c ohalI
provide a period of 001 Jess chiD 30 dlys from Iho dale !he is ,i\'CQ in KCOrdance wilb Section IS ....ithin
which Borrower mW! pay ill &umI MCWed by !his Sccurir)' If Borrower flil$ w pay!heu 'WIlli
prior 10 che upintioa of Ibis period, Leoder may invoa any remedies permined by Ibis SccwiIy lnmwntlll
....w.ou. funber ooU<e or demand 00 fIon"owcr .
WITNESS ntE tIANO(S) AND SEAl.(S)Ol' nlE UNOERSIGNED
_________ _____ .. I)
.-

EXHIBIT 2
PREPAYMENT RIDER
4. BOIUlOWI.:l!. 'SRlGHTTO PJU:l'AY
I have tho rip! 10 maU paymen15 of principol 01 ""y Lime: LbeJI "'" due. A paymoru of
princip>J only is knoWLl as I "prtpaymeru". Whon I mm. . prepaymenl, 1 will wu tho NOle Holder in
wrilina thai I am doin& $0. I II1lIY not deoiJnaw. paymeru u a Propaymenl if I have DOt made.1ll tho
molUbly paymelllS due under tho NOle.
1 may make. partial prepaymcru wilhoul payina:Llly propaymcll! chua . If I mUc a full prepayment
within 3 y.ar($) of the dale of this NOIe. l:oar"" 10 P'y , prepaymeru chuLle of 6 months advance interest
on the lIIlOUnl prepaid in exceu of 20% of tbo original kwllrIIOWU. Tho: Note Holder will lise all of my
prepayments 10 red..ce tho amoonI ofprincipol Ihnl owe under !his Now. However. tho NOIe Holder lI1lIy
apply my Prepaymelll 10 tho and unpaid inwresl on the Prepaymelll amount, before :apply"", my
Ptepaymcnt 10 redu.ce the Principal amou.nr. of tho Note. If I maU. putial prepaymeru. thore will be no
cha.na:es in !he due dale or in tho amou.t1I ormy molllllJy payment IlIlless!be Note Holder agreq in wrilin&
\0 those
By SIGNING BELOW,
Ptepaymem Rider .
Borrower a.ooepts aod ""= 10 Ity' Y"11lS and proVjsiolll colllllned in this

______________ (S I)

______________ I)

IllIllll m III [1111t1 ill lUI m 1111

EXHIBIT 3
DEED OF TRUST

INYO-M9NO TITLE COMPANY
Af,.,. Roeo,din& IltlUrn To:
Da::i.;oo One MOil",," C<>oI1>any, Ll C
3023 HSBC W.y
Fon Mill. Soulh Caroli"" MIS
, 1IIIIIIII IIIIIiIIIIIIDiTIlllllIlIIllIl -
llf'10 Colilty
BMRLY J HARRY Co Rteordtr Off ice
DOC- 2006- 0004926
Q\oe' _ . , " 13"
T ....... .!.y, NOV 30 , 2006 10,44:18
JL" ' SZI $ll . '''JllCC sn."
,n.'"
It! Pd S4U3
ONO/RI/I-I]
__________ ISpo<o .l.1>o.. TlIir 1,1110 ,-'" _"" 0.1&1 -----____ _

DF.FINlTIONS
Loon "umboT U6006I007264/
DEED OF TRUST MIN: 1000J7%OOOOOS660J,
WoM!"'If!e<l In ITOJltip\e _ion< of ,hi. doNmenI ate deflned btl ..... and .. be. word< are def,nl in S<ctlons l,
I I, 13, 18. 10 and 21. CWn rule< rtlwi", (heu$O&e"f_rdo used in 'hi. docIIrnenI ...... ., provided in
Soelion 16.
1.0.) "s..,,, rity hut .. ",."," means Ihif; documom, which i. datod OCT08f.R U , lOO6,lOJ<Ihtr wilh all
Rid.n t(I,h;, 4oowncn1. e
(8) lkIfT""-... i. AL'iSON J DliNK, A SINGLE wmlAN. Bonower is I 'ru>l I.OIdefll'lisSmlri,y *
I .... rumcm.
(C) "L<nde1-" i. Oedsion 0... MIWlI:aK" Con'p"ny. LI. Lender i I.I Mln:D I.IABILrfV
"'1I .. i .... """ i"inl w'IISct IlIe 10 .... of NORTH CNWLlNA. l.ender", Iddrec. I. 3023 IISIIC WAY,
M'LL, SOUTII CAKULI""
(U) '7 .... , .. " i. ClilCAGO TITI .r. lNSUItM<CR COMPANY, 171 N. Clark S,I"ftI, ILLINOIS
6060131!14.
(}., "MERS" i. Mortll"Se 81'onic Jl.e,iWllli<>n Sy........ Inc. \lERS i,. seporll< :xp<>'IIIi<>n "",,1, .... in'
ool<-Iy ... noml_ (0, and L...rder', .LLC:te\OOrt..-.l ""igns. Ml::kS ;" 11< ba>tf1dary
s.a.rlLy I n"",IJI(>IlL. MERS is o'1 .. iud and ... iMin, under ,110 I ..... .. r Del ...,... and hal .. add, ... and
'elq>t>one n .. nI><, of P,O. 1026, Ain'. MI 4SSO' 1026. 'el. (US)
........ ,h. promiuory ...... ,iJn<d by Borrn"""..-.l dOled ()CT()KF.R 26. 1006. Tho Note ... 'e<
,II>, 1Iutro_ ",... L.end<, TILKEE IlUNURED .OUR TIIOUSAND FlVf: HUNDRED AND OOIIOO1hs
Doll.n (U.S.SJ04.SOO.00J plu, in' .... ' . Ba,"'''''', ..... P""'" .... 'o pay thi. dob< in "'lui .. _ic: P'y"'''''''
""" '0 pay ,be deN in full ..... 1 ... , ,,,",, 1. 1036.
(G) . ...... pffiy" moat .. the properly Ill.. is do$cribal boeIow wilier ,he ....,i'\ll r .... f .. <;>fltiV".;n'be
Ptope<1)'.
(II) "!.uon" .-..am the d<Ot .... icIencc<L by ,be 1'1"'0. plus in' ..... ' ... y prepaymen, o""'&eo and III< chari'" I!ut
undo, ,he Not and all .urnsd ... undtt Illi. Socuri'y Instrument. plus im.' ....
20 06 4 926
(11 Rld .... rrana oil Ridm 10 ,hi. Security InslrunlC1ll ,Iu, ..., o.u:cuted 1Ion'o""eI. The: 10110"';'11 Ride"
.... 10 be eJ.C<;u,cd by DoI'fO\\"eI (oheck 001 " Ipplicable] :
ltlo,. Ridtr
D lIlIllOOn Killer
01-4 Family RiM,
OC<>rOOminium Ride< OSond HOIIII! Rider
Ql'lannoa Uno! Dovdopn>eru Rleler OOU>ert.)
oBi_l, hymen. Rider
(J) Low" mo.... Jll COIltroUin. apfIIitab\e federal. 01... wi local ,1lI\1''', tq\Il.tions. ordinances
and admirti"rati'e ",Jell In<l orden (,hat ......... off1 of I .... ) .. .. all o.pplicabl. r.nal. "".H.ppealoble
judiei" ""ink",
(KJ ' e "",munl!), rusociatloa Du.. , .'ca, . nd "'""" all dues. fees, ..... smt!II.ard 000
otwt'" 'Iu' .... imp<>Xd on 8o<ro .. '" Of.be!'ropelt)' by I COI"OWminium bomeo.....m _ialion
or simi, .. orzani .... ion.
(I., " F.kelr\>fIl< t'u.1Is T"' ... r ... II"ftI\$ any IraN(.". of form. 0100 lhan. by <!led,
drah, or simil ... pope.- in .. tument. which i, i."lalrd d,,,,ulh on "",ronic ,erminal. telepIIonic insl""""",
ton"4'"'OT, or """,,",it .apt 10 .. 10 onSer, ;,,"""".0< .",hori.<. filWlCial in>,ilUlion 10 debil or cdi. an
"""""nt. Such <Om includ ... but ;, I\QI limited 10. pOi",..,f.!. !.-..ufen, ""orrwod ,eller mochine
lrans.><lions. " .... fm iniliOloil by .elep/Ione. wi", " ..... r ..... and IU.Ommd clcaJi ngbouse ... "'r .....
(.\ 1) ... I" m," i ...,..haI uedescribed in """.;(0)
(1'1) "MiK<i la _ I"ro<ft<b" means Illy oompensal;oo, sen!.,.,.,.., award ofdamall", 01 proceed. paKI by
""y .hi ... pany (o,ho, than proc<l3 unde, the _erag .. described in StoctiO/l 5) roo: (i) damage'
'0. Of deslrucliotl of ho Pn>pony; (iil ()(H'odannaIion o'OIhe, IOl:.ing of oll o,""y p.ut of.hol'rop<ny: (iii)
c:onvq"""" in I;'" of condemnaIion; or (iy) mi.ttprese", .. ions of. Of omi .. iono .. 10. the val"" >ndIor
CO!Idi,ion of.lK: Propeny.
to ) ".\Iortg_", l",u"'l><t" means inSUf"llla: proi1ing \..Imdor agol..... the """""Y"""" of. or <Id ... l, ott. lIIe
""".
(I') "-110&11" ",..." the ""ulmy Khoduled lJIIOIlnt duo for (i) prinei"", """ int ..... , ullder ,ho
NOI. pi", (ii ) any amoun .. uodo, s.c.ion ) of this Sewri'y [""""""II<.
(Q) " 11. 51'''" mo .... the Re.aI Est ... S.III.....,,' I'tQ<a!urn Ac, (12 U.S.C. n(i(ll .. <;.) and i"
i""I""""ing retuillion. 1I.'luIOl;"" X (24 C.F.R. I'".n ... lIIey miglrl b< from lime 10 'ime. or
.... y adc!i,ional or lecioll1ion or ""ull,ion 'hOi JO "" the..",. subjlnwl.t. A. ulClll In Ihi.
s.cw;IY b'''rurtW:fti. 'RESPA' 10 all ""luin:tt1O:fU. and "",nc,io .. ,h;l! I re impo:Joed in ",!"d 10.
'fk,oIly I<Uoil ",<ml",ol"",,' ""OIl ifth" 1..w",.J..><> ..... .. . (..!<;rally "" .... " """"''0 """
II.ESPA.
(R) "SucnsMr In Inl .... 1 .... 8" .... 0' ... '. muns .... y p.uty!lw .... <01.... 'i'lo ... the l'nJpotIy, whtII>er or no!
thai puT)' h", .. 8<mo,."er, <>blip"'" under lilt NOlO oodIOIthi, S:urity 11l$t!'Um<nt.
TRANSFER OF lUGllTS IN TIm PROPERTY
beneficiary ofilli. ScounlY I .. ""","", i. MERS (soIoI1" Mminee for Ltnd.t and L<rdtf',
... i",,) OJ><! the .. ..-oj ,"i, .. of MEMS. Thi, Sce.,ity 'n .. """.'"
"'Pl ymenl of , .... lcwt. and 011 m\O ......... , ..... """
"and ..
Iy tran" ccnvO)'J 10 Tru .. "". '" '","I.
i C .... nty ., ___ "
ITYJ>< of Recordi", lur:"'i."",,]
SI::I:: ATTACIiI::D SCII EDULE ' ,1. "
Do"1 ".J.- tlJ,k TI\.I>4
u,J-"
,
20064926
wbkh curmllly !be IIddms ________ _
[Sntel)
, ,..,. "' ____ ""', ____ _ ' CalilO<lli.

iCily)
(" I'fopony AIId",..'):
(Zip Code)
TOGETHER WITH all 11>0 ;"""'>......". now or herancr.-..I "" ,I>< ",openy .,>dalll'2Semtn ...
appunenill'lCo$, and r,uures now or hoa.fIer IWI of ,be PrnpeRy. All rq>locemenl. ard additions ob>.ll 01.., be
I>y ,hi. Secutl"Y'S<rumtn!. All of ,he forelloin, i. ,<ferro<! to in lhi, !iecIlril)' IllSln""em .. ,he
S
'1'roJ><'r11: 1Iorro\I-er T>l iIldi ihd ... ,.. thaI MERS IIoIds only klill l illclotllelnloru!.,W>'oe<lby
\ I!om>wer Ill;' Security b,.I"""",,,, hut. to <OnIply willi I.,. o mom, MEltS (as notnilft for
n .\ Len6et and LenII!:r' , .uccesson and "';grII) hIS lhe ri&lll: to ., dle any 0, all or lbo$e inttte$ll. ;ncludi.., .
. .. G, .. , bu! ..xlimi, I 10. !lie ri&hl 10 1"",,100. and $<11 lilt I'I'openy; and lolal: ... yltlionrcquin:<iof Lmdor
bu. "'" limi",d 10, and U/nlilli Ill;' Surj,y InslrummI.
IIORROWElt. COVENANTS til., Borro .. i. I .... fully Itised of"'" oot.. c hcffby CQ . .... ye<l ODd"" !he
"'J I" ri&hl to IratIO .... tonvq' llIt ....",.rty ond Ill., "'" l'ropMy i. """""""'red. n<q>< for encumbrarns of
" rt<:Ord. BolTOWtf .,arran" ond will dcftnd Sercrally the lill< to ,be Propffl'y ' lii ... al l claims atId demand
/' A 1ubjec\ \0 .... y CfICU/l"branca of record.
y" THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT oornbi ..... uniform oov.nlP\' r", na<ionaI "'" atId "",,uniform
CUVftWlf< ... illt li"';, rd variations by Juriodicl ..... to uniform """,rity instrurnem 00'1";", real
"",petty.
UNIFORM COV[NAI\'TS. _ onI Lendercov ...... and agm: IS folio" ', '
I. Paym.n, ,.,. /'rlnd""l. I ........ '. J::ocro,.. I'tm$. f'rf ... ,._ Cbara<", .tHll.a" Cba"Ra. So"","""
Wli p&y ,,"hen d"" \1>< prinr;ip.ol of. onI irKe:r<:sI 011 . II>< debt .yidenced by ,I>< Note onIany p<q>ty",,.,n
010.. ,,,, ..... I .. dIU,.. due under <ht NOlO. 80""",., Wli allO pay r""". ro.. Escrow Items pur....,, ' o
Section 3. PaymtrK. <!lit un6tt the Note onI Ibis Security Ins""n23u 111011 be INd. in U.S. <urm>ey.
If any <beck '" "' ..... i""""""", .-.uiyrd by l..emlor IS p&ymrnI und<r the " "'H" this S\Iri,y
I"""...,.... is returned to unp.oid. Lendet may th.. any '" 011 otoboajuem p.1ymefl1. d". urdct \he
N" .. on<! ,hi, -'''';'y 1".., .. .--. be....- in """Of """,,of II>< followina fOIIDl ... lCI<ard by Lmder: (01
.1Sh; (b) """'"l' 0fIkI"; emir .... <he<k. bank .beck. ,..,...urer1 .heck 0< cashier', tIIock. """,ided ... y ,,,,,h
<beck ill drawn upoo OIl ;""iMlon .....,.. dtP,osil. ore i"",red by " f<der.ol "JI<'Il")', insltumC1\lol i'y. Of <!'Ki.y; or
(d) ElocI<OIli<: fund, TTansfer.
raymer .. "'" """mod received by .. ,tie ""'''iondc.si, no'I in ,I>< NOlO"''' .uch
"'!>or I"">lion IS rn:IY be .... i'n>\<d by L.end<f In ;IoOOOrtlance " ith \be notice pro.i.",,,, in Seclion IS. Lende,
may rerum any p,ay",nn 0' pmill pay,.,..", if,he pay"""" '" pmill _I"",rr",""" to brio, tho l.o.ln
<UrT<1II . I.eodc, rnay oocq>< any pay"",,.. 0' pani., poymet1l insuffoci .. \ to brina the L.oon ell"""'. without
of .... y ri"",. tIe<eUOlder 0' p .. judice to it> ,iii''' to payment '" p;II't ili payro .. u In Ibo
flu.,.,. but Lmder i. not obli",ted to apply such poy",""" II the ,imo'''''' payment. ore U...,h
Periodic i.applird .. ofi" Khedull d ... tSar.,. \bon t..ea6e, nted not i:lt.... t on "noppHed fun<iJ.
i.end<-r may J>old such unopplied IWIth "", il Bornr""" nuI<cs poy"""" '" brina.tIe leAn ourret\t. If 8om>\<."
.... not do "" within . .. period of timo. [.A,nder slWl oit"'" ""'h funds '" raurn thom 10
1Jonu .... , . If not .ppHed earl;',. such Ilnxb ... iII be applied to tIrt ...... andi'" p'-;IlCip.oi bol__ unde, the: Nolo
Immedi .. ely prior lO JorK .... U .. . No Orr ... or <loim ,,'hick Bomt ...... rttitht .... now 0, In ,lie !'utu ... Iplnsr
Lmder ",",I ret;"'" BotTOWer from malrina payment. due unde, tire NOle and this $;urity I""",...."t or
performing oovmam. atId .,,.,..,.,,,, securl by this Securi,y l"' tNmel\l,
1. Appl!ca\!oa or PoY"""" or f'ro<o:t<k. E..pI .. otl><rwiK .....,ribod in ,bi, Section 2. all poy..,.,"
ooteptrd ODd "WIled by Unde, .hall be applied in tire following order of p,lority: (0) irK..... duo urKltt the
N",e; (b) p'-;IlCipal due "lIde, tbe Nolo; (oj orooum. duo "lid .. Se<:<ion 1. Suc:h p"ytlltrltl 1II>1! be applied '"
_ h Payment in the order in ""'1dI i, bo<.tmtdue. Any remainin,arroun .. Wl I be appIird r. ... to
I ... <:barJ"". $<COOd to any ",lin """"",,,due: W"Ida thi, Security Ins, l"IIrTIOIII. ani lhen to red""" the principal
balance of l11e N"'e.
200649 26
If 1J:nolc. tte<:i.... p.yn\tRI from 1Ioml ..... for .lltIinquont f'criod;' PAy"...,,' which i"dud ... surf,.,"",
_ 10 POY "1 I .. a.. po,..,.". may be applied 10 !he ddinquenc p"ymem:nl I ....
If mor. II'Ian ont l'I!ri<.:Iic r .ym<nI;' outOUndinl. lcncIcr may opplY"r POymenl =ei""" (rom 1Iom> ..... 10
"'" <q>a)m<fl' (If It.; Periodic I'.y......". if. ard to ,he . " .... ,hao. """h ,,"1"""" """ be poid in full. To the
.AI,,'" ,r... '''1 e.<e ",;,,, ./."{ U", p.yn""" .. OW1ic<llu , ... full "","'"'" <>10""",-..- I'<,iodi< I"J_MI,
_h <w may be applied to ""1 ,.,., chuger due, V<JIWlW')' P""'Y"""''' >ball be '!'Plied r,r1I to ""1
olurcer and <ben .. dtribed in lilt 1'1'",
"'ny apfIl i.>lion of 1"1_. iI\SU1OIn pt<><m)s. '" Mi>ccJl..,..,.... J'n>tr<xb 10 pri"";",,, c!ut """ ... ,h.
NOI. $hall DO< e.<loocI Of po$Ipono tho d ... 411., or <bange !he amoum, of ,he P<riodjc r armen".
l. h n'oOCf >/WI p<q to Lmderon the d.y l'e<iodi< "'"1"""" .... d ... under the
Note. u .. il ,he N_ i. paid in full . rum (!he ' Fund,' ) to p"",;(Ie for for: (a) lUes
arol ...... ''''''IS lind ",I"cr il...... w/lkh con .. 1.;. ,hi, So:cumy a lien or encurnb......,.
on !be Propo"Y; (b) 1CC!w>ld poymen<Hlf 'rouad ...... on!he Propony, if 11'11; (0) premiums lor ""1 oro aU
im","",," I't<iuirn;\ by Lond .. UMo' Se<\i<m S; IIld (d) if ony. 01 aoy ... "",
payable by '" Lende, in lieu ohbe of MORIIg<' Insurance prwUurIIlI in at:ClOn1ance wilb lb.
""",i,ions <'If Seclion 10. These ilem! an: <. 11ed -screw IICW6. "I ori&ination or ""Y lime durinillbe .. nn
of lbe Lender mil) ""lui", ""I COll"WnUnily "...xi i<>n Dues. trod " ..... """" if""Y. be
"'''owtd by IlofTO'ol'<1". and ,uch d ..... f..,. ....: aseument. shall be an Eoc:.ow 1,..... 1Jorn, .. ",. sh.111'fOIllP'1y
fumlsh '0 Lt.ndn all noo.ice> of """""'" 10 be paid ufliSn thi. Se<:!i<>n. Borro .. "'all pay Unda ,be I'und$
for Eoc:""" 11..... unI ... Ltrdt, .... iva 8om>..",.', obIillliOll '0 pay !he Funcb. for any or all E>c"' .... 1t.......
may """;vclk>tTo...,,, OOl',a1ion '" pay 10 t.er.kr f'Unoo"> 1o. ony o. all Eoc"' .... Ilem> lIl ... y Ii...... ""y
>Uc/I wai"", may only be io writi",. In !he ev... of_h ... ivt"t, Borrower d\all pay di_Iy. ",hen and who",
pay.ble. !he amount. due IOf ."y "-'row I,,,,,,, fot whid! pay<lXfll of FIlnd. .... .... iveel by Lender
...... if Unde< f<"IUi .... shall furnish ro I..m:Jer ..:ipl' .,""",,"i!IJI wdt 1"Ymen< "';lbin SIIClI,imc period ..
lendc:f rnay rcqui .... Bono,...,.'. obll",io" to make .1ICIt payrn<lll' ond ro p"",ide ....,.;1'1. shall fo .all
purpoes be <IofflIt<l (0 be OO>"tnalIl and q,.,.",..., <;OOtain<d in ,hi, s.c..ril)' ,,,,,,,,,,, n. a ,he phrase
'00'_ and i. usal in Seeri<>n 9. JlBono..",. i. obIill"ed '0 pay Eoctow It""" dir!ly. "".....",
'00 ... iv... and Borro ..... roil. '0 pay ,he """""" d"" foc an Esc""" 1'<IIl. Lendtr rnay " ",ile ilS riVl" W'ld<r
Stction 9 and pay .00-. amount ..... Bom>wer wll then be obIl!",..! oro! S<ction 9 10 ,",,"y 10 l.mdu .. y
... ,11 """""'. l.mder may ,be waivt"t 1I ro ... y o. all Eoc", ... U.ms III ",y ,ime by 0 l>QIicc ,iV(l'l in
....i'b Set'ion I S and. upon .och "',"0':;1Ii<>n. Boml'll'" "'all pay 10 Lome, all Punds. and iuuch
OIn(IUIIII. an: ,...., roquited b!I(\er Ibl, Se<:!io<l J.
I.aU:r .... y ... ""1 lime. wll<cO ..... bold 1'unW;" .. , .. (I&) ... ffl<icno '" ""rml' I.erolOT ' 0 apply ,Il<
PIIIIIl. " Ill< Ii"", specif>Od """'" RESP". and (b) n<>lIQ C<>cd lho ..... imum ............ I ...... r can .eqoi ...
under RESP,,-_ Len<ler ohaIl ..,i"",,,, , he """""" of Funds due on lbe bM;' of CUrrer< dall and ........ Dlbl.
"'Unar" of uptndirures of funtrt E..:l'O' I,em. o. <><he"",.. in at:ClOrdance with Applicable Low.
TIlt Pund, .... 11 be bcld in ." inslitu<;"" whe deposit> .... ;","red by I f .... ral 'iI"""Y. in<tf1ll"!lmlali,y,
0' .nli'y (inctooing i, an "",ilUl;"" '-'"'><>scdoposi" .... so illS"....!) Of in..,y RdenI Homo
l.<W1 Banlr.. Lmder shall apply ,be F..-.;I. '" pay lho Est",w 1'...... no I .. ..-than lhe lime speciflCOd undcT
RFSP" . l end..- shall "'" oharp Bonu ...... f.,. hc)Idin,...J "I'Plyi!IJI ,be 1'","". ar>Jl\Ially analy.i!IJI ""' ... """
oaount. Of ""ril)'in, "'" Esc", .... I'ems. unl .. , tender p>ys 1Io<ro..... ,ru ..... on , ... 1'Wl<h II<Id AP!'lioobt. Low
petrni .. l.endcf '" ",,1:0 sucb ohatJe. Unl ... .., .,_, i. made in wri,in, 0, "PI:ditallle 1..0... ""Ju''''
i"",,,,,, '" be Pl i<! on !he Funds. u, ...... hall "'" be r<oq<.>i....! ro poor 80""..",. any in<e",,' Of eami!IJI' on (be
Furlel. Bo<ro"'<r and J.<nder can ... _ in wri(i",. ho ... Ihar I",,,,,,,, ",.n toe P'\id on tIIo Fund . l.enda
.>!l..u ,i>. '" Bono_'.";_ ohM"".., annu.al OCO><l",inl of'lIe Fund ... ""I"irM by RESPA.
If ,be", is I ' ''<pI .. of PIIIIIl. beld in ...,row." dermed under RESPA. 1..,,600-,.-w1 ott",,,,, '0 Bo<ro......
for.be au furdo in willl Rl'SP ... . If ....... n"'.orFun:I.heldin<><ro ...... der.n<d
under RP.sP .... t...nd/:r I!WI notify lkIrrower IS ""IUi,ed by RESP .... oriel Botro,...,. ihall pay to I..mde. the
amount ne<es!W)' .0 make up the sbonage in OC<I),dance wilb RPSPA. bill in no more Ibon 12 ""''''tIly
pa)"lllOnt. , If !here i defIC;'ncy of Fund, beId in ""'''''' ... defilO:<! u'" RESP". 1.mder ihall notify
Borrower IS ""Iuited by RESP". and llorrowtr shall pay '" Le ..... no<:nW)' 10 mak. up lhe
der"'i'ncy in acoor<laru wi,II RESPA, but in no mort ,han 12 _hly
Upoll in r"l1 of all '"""" 1C(:\l....! by lbi. Securily lnll"",,""'. l.crIClef ohall p""'l"ly ",fund '0
Borrower any Finis hold by l..mdor.

H e
- ,

::1

"" '

!
!
,
l

!

;

-

,

",-,'I 1-,n-'" '"IU'-'" i't"""'-[{ , '-"-E"r' .. ,
'.L., . . j . " "r .. , ... i " .' e. ' I'

" ".... ,""-1" _. i-"p,-, '- , "HO
il l !i ! g j [:]1
.! ,-'j-'!' h H Wi! !:i ! ,11 hl 'i' -I:, ',_,' !i" . , h' '[-
u
2" 2,/;' -". M"" s ". 2;1'
2 i.a '!'!. " '" os'

'-.' ,! ,.,!" co .. Ii-"",,! , "!!l"'"

lh" ' "'.' . "!'.' '"1'-' ,,',
?iq!l:1' i!:fi s t
." "'" "'." If ". - E 0 !!.o ""<38--
,or:"! jSj!{,'h ,h';"[!i ,iH
p<:'wa"2 Kit iI fJ!
_.,.,=',1 'j"'."""-- " -I ".-H"r,!
'I i"-' ''"'I"!'' . ["',,' 'i,Oii
g
--'''! I - -
i:l!.!:H
nwn flHruh i mimHnH
iii!'.'" 'a!'! '[i ll '

i:I. /!. .s -Mil". !!. 15. if !! fI!"'si -' g' .. "'!l j"
.... d.- H l .i!i&' 8. iI g' ".';- -lB .3'
EHjjqd-J
1""-'i , .. L'B . l' ,i
,i'-' !. ,'. . -, --. a, "'-"F , . '
ail"_!Z:"!lo .;sago if", e:g if j 11 ;- 5.
- i"i,1 !<.[ i:i . g -!{
.i,h,.! " nh!"!inni Ji-
N
o
o
0)
..
<0
N
0)
20064926
L..erd<..... y di'bune proccoclt fQf IlIe rcpoirs &lid '."<>ration in ingle ....... or in I series of P"'IrN
pay"""" as lh< ",,,,,k i. compl.,<d. UnI... an .,1U'IIlt1JI i. IIIOISe in wririnl 0< Applicable La", J<qUires
;".oral 10 be p.oid "" .lIth i .. urIIICC p""' ...... , I..eOOc< >hoI1 "'" be ..... co pay Ik>rro_ any ;"'"re$! at
.ami",. on . ""h proceeds. F..,. 10. public adj .. , .... or ",her lIIin! part ....... a.inod by Bom>wer..,.I1..." be
OK! ...," of , he ilUU,_olK0C4, &nd IIIoll be Ibo ..,1. oblip' ;"" of ]ft,," """' ... .,., 0< I'<l'"ir i.
lIOI OC<><Knni<lIly (usible Or Ltndo,', """';'r would be I...."...!. Iho il1lurnx:e J>ro<d> Wli bc :applied 10 ,be
owns ><cured by Ihis Sec:urily 1","""'O'lL. _ or not ""'" due, wid! !lie .=. Ifany, pakI to 80"""",.
SUch i ...... Wli be "",lied in Iho order provided for in Section 2.
If 8orro" 'Of iNndons,he Propcny. Ltndor may lile. !>ellOIi... ond ... ,I.""y available ;"",,",,,,,ellim 1IICI
rellIed mII"O... II Bo,rn_ ""'" 001 wi!hin lO 43y. lO. "",it< from iMIde< 'hoI.he iN"""",, <.,.,.i.r
Iw off.red 10 ... ,1 Claim. ""'" Lender may ""Bo,i.,. and ... ,1. <I" claim. The period will begin
when ,be notice i. Ii.",.. In either even!. or ifl..en<:kt OCqui .... 'bc Proponr tlIId<r- Stion n O'OIberwiSt.
Borrower be,oby assi&", 10 I.endoT (a) Bom>wer's riJl>lS '" any jmuranc. proc<lO'Il. in an III1IOU!II no< to .>.e<ed
!he amouMs """.'d u"",," IlIe NOIeOf thi' Se<urily Ill$Irummo.. ond (II) any ... 1>." of I\omIwer', .i,b" (o!her
dun ,be eighl to .. y refund of uroeomcd praniwm paid by 80"""".) WIder 011 iruurance policies co ring d,.
Propelly. i!lSOf.... ""h ri,hts are applicable 1<1 11."'0 ..... ' . nf!he PrlJ9<f\y. lcoil<f may !he i".",oncc
p<O'l<d i,"'" 10 .-epai. 0< !he Proptny .,. to poy lITUIlts unp.id Ul'Idoer tbe 1'01<: 0< ,hi. Securi,y
Insllum ......... 1>etho< or '"" ""'" d"".
6. Ou,,""<y. IIonowe. oIlJIl 0C<'\lp)' ... lOblW1...... u<el1>o Propeny .. 80_', pri""ipol raidc:noe
wilhin 60 days . n., ,1>0 u<CUIioo of !hi. S<.:o.i,y lns/lu,,..,.. oro! shall conti .... 'o occupy ,1>0 ProprI1}'''
pri""ipal for .. I .... 0 .... .. , f<... ,lied ... ofocc"V""'Y. unless l.erdcr Olllerwiu " , ...
in .... i'ing .... 'hictt """'""" .1IaI1 noc be ...;,hhold. o. unI"", ,,,'rnul<illj: drtulll$Ull<C> .. ilt ... hith
. re beyond 8oI'm ..... """m1.
7. rr-..... tlon. Moint. n. _and 1'Y<IIIlon o/',1Ie 1'roper1y; In. pt<'lio ..... Bo!mwer Wit noc _my,
.wn.,. PmpertY. olio .... ,he Propelly 1<1 detmor1lC 0< commit ........ oa!be f'nlpeny. Wh<tlIor or
_ Bom>wer is raiding in !be Pmperty. IIolTower obail mainlain t1>o I'ropelly in ord., 1<1 prevertl ,lie f'nlge"y
from .... crionuina '" dooll<l$in, in val"" d"" 10 ill condirion. UnI... ,I is IIcImnil'lC'<J purstl>l\t 10 Seel"", S tllol
repair or ,.,..", .. ion i. not o:conomicolty rc.ible. Borrower ... all promp,ly ,be Prnper!y if d1rl1l&"" 10
.void tunoo deteriotal"'" Of 4amage. If i ...... ranee or c:<>!td<mNIioa ... paid in coru>:Iiorl ... ith
...... i. 1<1. or the """"I of. the Propeny. Borro_ Wli be K:lp"nsible fo< repairin, Of '"''''ing .... Propeny
only il I..enokr ..... pm .... b ",. .""b po....,.... letder may di,burse pm>ed. for Ibe .. oro!
fCI ..... ion in , .ingl. p&)'men, or itt ... ri olpmS"'" payr<lO'llU" the WOfk i. <""",I ... ",. If lilt iN"""""
o. concI<rnrt.a, ion p'occecI> are _ SlIme""" '0 repai. or ",",ore .... 1'roperTy. Bormwet is '"" of
80,.".." ... oblil .. ion f"" lhe of ,11th repai. o. K:IIO<.. ion.
l"""r o. its may make ruooaabIe ert1ri.. upon >lid inopo<1ions of Ibe """"'lIy. If i, has
ru<orI>ble Lertde't may impocl .!Ie inlctior of !he on IIIe Propeny. !.erode. UIaIf ,iv.
IIonowtr noti<:< II tbe rhr .. of o. pno. '0 ouch on interior i"""""ion """,ifyi", SlIob ,.,...,..aJ)k ""usc:.
S. lk><T<)Wor'. Loan """I'Hat.lo,,. 80",,_ shall be in <leraull if. dori", the to"" appIi<.. ion proceo.o.
IIonowtr or .. y ponollS or t",nies acoing ...... diftCllon 01 BolTo_ or wi!h Son""" ... _Ied,t or
p .. "",,,,ialty f.I",. miolcadinJt. or inot:cur.ot< infOtmalion "" .... e"'""'. to lender (0' failed 10
",ovid< Latclcr wi,h mal<tiol inf_ion) incontlCClion Material ropteWll"iono ;nc:lu<le. bot
arc '"" limi,cd to. rq>n:ocnlllio .. <:<Jt'oIn1linl 80""....,.. occupancy of lilt Pr<>p<'<1y .. 1Iorro..... principal

9 . .......",,100 of I_w', In ...... In lhe J'rot>1Y and Klgh .. Unw .ltil surl'r I",''''''''.'' If (I)
Borro ...... f.ill to periorm t!le .., ......... and 1,"","","1l coru.inod in ,lti. Securi,y In .. ",t!ICI1I. (II) ,!len: is.
1e,0I proc-!in, !hal milht ';lnifK:Molly affect Lmder', i .. omo in ,be I'topcrty oneIlor ri&hl' under !hi.
Securi,y Instl\LmC1l. (..idt I, ptIl<>:Olinl in p"""'tC, for conoloetnrwion Of foriti tun:. for
crtro ......... of . licrt whith may .... in priorily 0"" Ihi. $taJrity Inst""""'" or '0 enforce I ..... o. rquillions).
o. (e) lias abandoned 11>0 f'nlge"y. Ihe<l Londer may t!o >lid pay for ...u.evCT i, n:uoaabl. or
opp""", ... 10 pm""" Lender', intercal in !be Property >lid .igltts under !his SeetinI)' ,"""'''''''''. ,,,,,Iud,,,,
"""ee.in, andfor !lie val... of !he Propeny. and .lCruri", lRIiIo. repalri", the Property. Le>.f .. ',
"""OM WI inc:lu<le. bul arc not limiled 10: (.) p>},i", .. y lUms oec\IIaI by I lia! ... hith lias prionlY 0' " !hi.
Sec\lrilY InSlrumenl; (b) apptItina in "",u,,; and It) payi"!; re>$OlUble .. torney, f..:$ 1<1 PfOle<:' ill in ...... in
"'" Propeny and/or fi", .. under this Seeurily Inrumern. i""lodillJ ,IS ""'1 ...... 1 po$i,ioo in a Nnluup"'y
f .... JI05 1111 (pdp 6 of 12 P<'I'"
""
E;! c
___ 0

= ,
:;;;....: ;:
- i
::1:
C'f;
:::: 1

011
1
I
,
!
I
!

"

[
1( 11 !I ."il I ,- ilill

g i'
I'",i
g q.
1:ll)! !li.!III
l'
i
(11- !f}J
qd[iChlhJ
h
a
l-" "3f" 'I"'" !-l'hli.!r "!'! if' .. '
mtfUj!iUil1IIiH1H:im
- . ,OJ - a ., ."-I' 'ji

= ' !:"'l ... , - ..
[ lj
i D F fl -
f! ii d] Itt;!!:
lBi! .. s-
l i,ii ri !t;.i i! Ii
"K::.i-! a:: ii! f i"'",a ;!.:Llt !lPj(
.F. B , ,. (j' ".!,,;!.,j .. i i' 1 -'
.. 3_ _ _. 2_
Ei I rill
N
o
o
0>
..
'" N
0>
200 6 4 926
11 ...... ignm ... t or MiS<elI......... Pn><ftd.: . orfrilu .... III! M;"",Il0ne0us f'roceal. hereby ... ia .....
10 and "'ill be paid tQ lcrdtr.
II I!>e I'topeny is ...,., Misoell ......... 1'focmI. Wli be applied 10 .. io" Of rrvair "I 'he
I'ropeny. if the re".,.,OIio<\ "'" rq>. i, i. =nomiully lea>iblt and l.oro!er' , ....,.,ri'1 is not \oum<d. DU';'I loch
"P.i, ond p<riod. L=ol<t ""'111'>0.-.,1>0 <if!" to I><>Jml rompklr<l to ume,"SOlil.llIt1;.m.
pfiWided ,""...,b iMP<CIiml ..... 1 be undenaken I..m;k, IlIlIY I>'Y lor ..... ml<><al;on in
;",10 disbur$ctnoN '" ilI ... riesofpl'Ol .... pay""'''1S alhe work i, oompl .. od. Unl ... an .,,.......,.,. is made
in wrl,jn, or Applie.oble L.a.... requl ... ;"_10 be paid onllllCh Miscdlaroe<l\li I'roo:eed LeOOer slall r1 be
"","uired 10 poy 8o""_"'y inte...., or urni",. un such Mi.ml .......... 1'rtI<:ds. If lhe reslomion or repoi,
i. "'" e<.'o'.)micIUy Imiblt or IeCUlity ..ould be 1 .. 1CIlOd. 11K: M ioccllaneous f'roc:ecd. shall be
applied 10 lhe sumo HICUft'I by ,hi. Ser;urity ,"'", .. ,,.,... wbetlIer or notlhcndlle. "j,h the ceo., ilany. pUI
10 Bonower. S\do M;"",IIaneou. ProcmI.lha!1 be applied in llItorner pf'(Iyidcll for in Soction 2.
In ,he own! of IOU! lakin,. destruction. or 10$0 in val ... ol'he Propeny. Iht Mi_lI_ I'ma!tds
...wI bo .ppliell '0 "'" lUrns secured It)' lhi. Secu,ily I",""rnent. wbolho, or"", ""'" due. wilh if
any. 80""""".
In "'" e\lt'lll of I pu1i .. Iwna ..... lf1It1ion. or loss in v .... 01,11< Prop<ny in which ,II< bi, mar\eI v ....
of lhe Propeny IlI1JntO:Iimly bef"", IlIe pu1i .. lUi", ..... 'f1It1ion. or 10M in VllI... is cquallO 0' ""Ole' than "'"
"'10\18( of 'h. "'nt. "",un:d by 'hi. Securily lnslrunt ... " ilflll>OOli,"'ly befo .. ,be puti" ,okin,. desl"""ion. or
los. in ...... unleu IIornIwcr """ Lmde, <HlicfwiK aK"'" In "",i,lnl. "'" sums .. ",\fed by !hi, Socuri'y
Inslrumtnt sh .. 1 be ttduml It)' ,he 111....... or "'" Miscellaneous I'rotecdo mul.iplied by the folio"';", r"<lion:
(., [he ".".1 """"nt of the ....". otCIIled imm<diarely before <he pu1i. 1 IUinl. dntNCIion. 0' loss in v .....
d;.Oded by (b) "'" lai, mar\el. v ..... ol ille Pmpaty immediately belore!he pu1i .. ",ki", ..... 'I\l0l100. '" lOIS 'n
v ..... Any b""",e $h .. 1 be [0 Bonn..",-.
In III< """'" 01. pu1ill lUi",. deslf1lt1ion .,.-10>, in v .... of the Properly in wIIltlt [he f.i, mar\el. vllue
01 tho Property ilr.nalillely belon "'" pu1ill laI<i",. dnttuClion. Of Iosa In VllIuc i. leu tIwt <he II110UJII of 1!It
01",,, soru,ed ;-...ria.oly be""" the pu1ia!l:Wnl. IlosotuClion. '" loS> in vol..... deu D<lrrower and Lmdo,
OIhe.... ise .&,..,., In writinl. lhe Mi",ellltlt'OUll Ptoctcds!.hall be applied 10 <he.WIIII secural by !his Securi.y
1"",,,,,,,"","'-Ol' "'" the ourns ... lhcnduo.
If <he PRljICfTy is _ by .. r. or Jf n., t'01kc by Lender 10 80"""", tlllt lheOppo.inl
Pmy (os drli!'Jlll! in <he nell "",,,,,u) offet)lo lI'Ilke an.ward to settle. <llim ror d ...... g ... Bo""..",- f, ililo
fospond 10 U,..,.. wilhin 30 4l)'S Iftcr the date the Mlitt is I;v", l.enitr i. to coli"" and awty lhe
Mi",.I1""""", Proceed. eithe, lu .... IOflllion or "",if of lhe Propeny or 10 <he wms secured by tlti. Sccurily
["''''''''''''' ......... lI<r '" "'" 'h<n Ihle. "Opp<I<i". Porty" me>n< ,II< 'bird I""Y "' .. 0 ...... 90""""",
Mi",.II_" Ptocu..... , shall \lO In ""fallil if any ","ion Of p...,.,.,..rinC. whl:!tIor <ivil o,,,,,iminal. i, beCun ,,,,,I. in
!.ende,', judgmem. could...wl in lorlcilureol,b< Proptny ",,,,be, nwerial imp.itm<nt 01 Lende,', interest
in <he rmp.ny or ,Igl><. lU'odet this Scc\lrily 1""''''''''.... 80.........,. can cu'" ...,,, tkf.,tll ancI. if ..... It ... ion
Iw occurred. rei"" ... IS pmvidod in s.c,ion 19. byo.ous'''' tbt ""ion or proceotli", 10 be dismiHed wi,h.
",Ii". .har. in lende,', jool,,,...,.. [>'<OCtodes fmld,.," of lilt l'topetIy Of OIlier impai"""'" of Lcn<l<r',
inl...,,1 In I"ropony or 'ight> ._ Ihi, Scc\lri\y hUI"'mon<. 'Tho procero. 01 any 1'W#d o,.I.im lor
dar",,", lhol .... ",ribuo.ble to <he impai"""'" 01 U:nde,'. inl ..... in "'" Pmpony ... i&!'JIlI! and
shall be p.it1 '0 I.-<trd<t.
All MiscelianeolJS Pr-ocee<Is lil.I.... "'" applied 10 reslO'OIion or repai, of the Propcny !.hall be applied in
IIIe ",<let pnlvillod for in Stionl.
U. Burro .. ' .. Not Rei.....!; I'o,bea"'n l.Iy UnrIr< Not. Wl lver. F->.\ension oflb< Ii"", fo' pryltlCnl
'" modifi<"ion of ..,.",iwion ollh< JUJ1>IIlONred by dli. Security In"rume-nt. &12flI<d by under 10 Dom>....,.
'" "'y in IrutteSl 01 8onowcr stull not ope .... to rel<ooe IlIe liabilily of 8onoweto, any S!Jc:cesso..
in imcrw of 1IornI .. -e,. t.er.Ier shall flO! be required 10 pn,,, .. ,,llng. "ai .... any Suowrwr in
In'"'"" of Bono"'" 0' 10 refit .. 10 e.,ontI Ii"" f'" payment or otherwise modify II1IOni"lion of lhe lWnS
secured by thi. Sccuriry Insl""""", by reO$On of any dtrnantI """" by die oriai"", Borro ..... or lIfIy Succesoo ..
in In",,,,,, of 80""....,.. Any fotboarancc by in eu,d.in! any righ\ 0' rer!'Jlll!y '""Iudinl. ",ithoul
limilOllon. L<:nckt', 1IXepIan<e of pay"""" f""" \hi'" penoru ..... it.... or Sut<:e>..... ;n In' ...,,1 of 80""""",
'" in ..",..,nu kss tIwt ,he IfI1OIIn[ thm due. sball "'" be . .....i.", of 0, ",""ludO the e>ercise of any ript 0,
remody.
200 64926
13. Joi nt ond 50>',,",1 U.bl lily; C .... S...".,...,... and AsJlin. Bound. tQ\-enan(. and
"8rees tl'IIII 8<>rro...... , obli,uio", and liability 5IIaI1 be J<>inl ond "', ....... However, any Borro ...... who
Higns <hi. Se<urily J""""""", bu. does ...,. """",. tile 14.... (a '00.""",,"): (0) i. oNipn, Ibi, Sc<utily
I .. ,,,,,,,,,,,, only '" mo<1goge, ,ran< ond OO"vq tho """'1110>'" inltrt:Sl in ,he I't'I>prn)' WIdtt lhe Imr>S of llIi,
!)<C\l"'Y Inll"""""': (D) .. "" personally 00111"'11<> ,1>0 >UJJ\S ><01/0<1 Dy IlIIt SCICII",} I"..",mem: ana (e)
. ,rees th .. L..mdn ond ""yother 8otm_ ",tee 10 O>.lme1. moc!ify. forbear Of ..... l<e ""Y O<>mmod.. io",
wi,h ",,0'" .0 !be t...,.. of .hi. Sealrily 1!U,fUI\1OI\! <>r "'" N,"c without 111< Ni, .... <OnSt1'JI.
Subjocl ' 0 ,he provi,ions of Settion 18, any Suotnsor in In,ereol of Bonower who ...... ",.. Bof1'O"":f',
""Iil.ion! u.-lbi, Stewi'} 1",,_ in ....riri"'. and is """to>cd by Lender, slWl obIlin all of IIorrower',
ri&hlS and beno/",.. under Ihi. Sc<:u,j,y IIU''''''''''''. Borrt>wt1 Jball "'" be rd ....J from IIorrower', oblip'ions
...., liabili,y WIder thi' So:urily I"""""",,, \IIII.... l.end .. Iglft> to.""" releaso in wri,i",. The coven." .. and
of thi. Se<\lrily J1'I>tnuntnl stull bind ( .. """ .. provMle<l in Section 20) ana bentfl,.he
ond :wi,,,, of Lender.
Lolln Charwro. I.mdcr may charge Borra_ r .... f<>t .. ",ices po:rfOfJ\'ll:d in COJ\lleClion with
9orrower', delault, IOf the pwpose ofprot',nl in'ereo' in the I'rop<I1Y and riih" uncIt, ,hi. ScaJ'ity
1""""""111, i""hoding, bill Mllimi,ed to, .tlo""'Y" f..", propel1y ,,,..,...ion and .. Ina!ion f"""_ In ""ud '0
... y OIher fees, (he absence of .'pm' l\!(OO';'y in thi' Security IRSlrun'ItIIt to ct."". , 'P""ir", I .. to IIo<rowtT
>hall MI be co .... ruaI :II prohibition on the e/w"", 01 wch l<e, Lend<:T may MI </w,e f .... th>t
prohilJi'ed by ,hi, Security I ... ,ru"""" Or by Applinble La .....
If the !.om iI subj"'t '0' Ilw whidl ......... i ........ lomchorp. and lIw 10'" i. ftrWly inletpreted.., ,1Ia!
the i",,,,,,,, 0' o,lIor loan char,es collfCIed or '0 be collected in ronnttfion ... i,h tile LoJ> e.\<ef<l tho pemUt1ed
li.mts, ,!"len: (.) any stdt 10lfl charI" Ullil be reduced by tbt .......... ".....uy '0 reduce ,lIeellor". to tile
pennitled limit: """ (b) ,-"y ..... already coil""",, r""" BoNQwer which .. <:ded pcntti!red limits"';l1 be
rdll..s.d '0 Bono..... . l<rodef!1ll)' <_ to maI<. !hi. ",fuJ>:j by rod"";IIJ ,he princ;JW owed w'oIler ,he No
or by I direct I"'Y"""" '0 BoNQ...... If . refuJ>:j reduces principal, ''''' "",,,,,,ion"';l1 be , .... ed a, I
pmial pr<:p>yment ,..;,110.. ..y p<q>aym<n' """'I" (whether Of "'" pn:paymen cl'wBe ;. provided fo, unde,
,he NOlO). BaNQ\\ott. "::''''pt'''''''' of .. y wch refund modo by difff' pay"""" to Borro"", will oanl,il"",'
..... i_ of .. y rigll! of l<lion BorroVoa milM "' ... orisin, out of.1.d1 <W<"rdIat,."
IS. Notlca. All MliC<:l &i'''' by Borrowt, Of lerder in ronnc:<:Iion witlt !hI. Security .. " lru...... '!l"OH1 be
in ,..,;tina. ""y "",ice to Don"...., in conno:o;:1ioo "';Ih thil Securi(y lro\rumrol!blll bed....-...! to hove botn
,i .... to Borro_ ... hen "",iled by Hm .1... mail o, ... 1Ien ""lIIally drli,ered 10 Borrower'. Mlice odIIrclI if
""" by odie ......... NOla to .... y one 8orro\\ott ohall """"ir.", "",a.o oil 5oNQw<r$ unless Apfllicllble
1 .. ", "'l";"'" ",,,",,,",,,_ Tho nntiM >dol..... _"""I he ,be Prope"y Add""" unI<Ss 5o"" .. "r bas
dr:!;&tW"" I ",""lilUte not"e odIIr... by Mlice to L.mda. Bonower shall n<>I;fy L.mda of
90"""",'. <han,. of ;odd""". If L<nder """if"" I pro<:ed= f.". "'P""illJ clI"'gc of oddl"Q>.
then Bonower ,hall only "'PO" I Cb.anJt of add, ... "'rougllllw >pif .... proeukl",. There may be only ont
dr:Jignaled nookc -"''''''' urder Ihi. s..::urily ' mlrwntnt .. any.".. ,imo:. Any "",ice to Ler.Iet ohall be ,iwn
by drli.oring il or by "..ilillJ il by fim 01... "..,1 .0 terokJ, addrel> $!ated ""'cin unlc .. L.tnd ... bas
dOli,,,,,,,,, another add .... by 1'IOli 10 801f<)Wef. Any "",ice in c:onnecrion ".'!h this SecuriIY In""""""1 oIWl
not be dotmod 10 "''0 b<oon ,i...., 10 I"""'" until ""rually r=i>'ed by L..tnII<t. If any "",ice r<quiled by 'hi'
Stcurity Immll"",,, iI 0110 "",,uired W"Idt, Aw1icable Law. tile Appliclble 1..>... requi ......... I.,.;1I ..,ilfy lite
DOrraponding requi=nen( und ... tlti. Securi.y lnolnunrnl.
16, ("..,.... nlnK La,,; ...... ... abitl'yi Itul .. of COI1Otrucllon. Thil Secu,ilY I""rutroenl .hoIl be goVi'fT('d by
rlorllla ... and 'lie 1 .... of.hejuriodic'ion in whictl 'he Prope"y iI l<lC.llled. All rigll .. OIl(! obIi, .. ions oonlained
in Securily I"""""""' .... ,ubjecl to ""y ond limil.lions of Applicable Low. Apfllitllble La ...
might: or i""licitly allow"'" pMlio:s to ., ..... by COOltno<, 0' i. miglll be .item. bul.""h ,ilonce >hall
not be COfIIlrued ... pr<>llibir"", lBai"" """"""" by >Ill"",!. 1n.1Ie event tfIat any prov,';(IfI or <lillie of
(hi. Securily 1."11\111""', Of .he N"" ""In"", ... itlt Ajlplicable Law, wtII conni" r.ru.tl nor .rfeel "''''''
provilklns gf .hi. Socurily Insl,""""" or rile which can be &i'''' .rr ... withoul IIIe confl;"illJ prO>ilion.
A. wed in lhi. Secutity '''''rumom: (I ) wollb 01 ,he malClllin< Kende, ohall mean and i""lt.de
cort"t>p<>rding ....... """do or,.",-,l< of the fornini"" een<In; (b) WI>rIB in 11M: ohall mo:an arod i.dt.de
,lie plural and ,ice ven.a: IfId (oJ !he word "may' ,i'''' solcdisctelion wilhoul any ""'i,arion 10 toke 0It)'
"'ion.
17. DorT<o..-'. Copy. Bo""""', "",II be ,i...., ont copy of ,he NOIe and of thi. Security I""""""", .
... " ,,,o.,, LWTRlIloIM" f onoJOIJ 1101 M.9ofllf>dl<1)
200 64926
18. T .... ""r.r of tho or . 1I... <lkl. II"' .... ' In ..... ulCd in mi. S<ctiQn 18. [mcre.,
in ' be "'openy. moans ..,y "pi or benefIcial in,O<eS. in lhe Propm),> inc:llldin,. bin D01limi'I10. _
benoficial .. ' ..... r.md In I bood for cIccd. """tract (or d<\<d, ; ... ull".,... >lI .. """"OCI ..... escrow
ttrtemerll. the ;.Im. 01 whioh i. !he , rooste, of ,itle by Borro .... ' 01 1\mJ.. d ... to pun:ha>tt.
If all or"'y pan olrlle Propmy or."y Inltn:lr in !he 1'l\>pOrty" $(lId 01 '!U$leJTC<l (or "110"""",.,, "'"
,...un) penon and be.... fi.ioJ i.-.,<>e In Bofro_ i> oold or ' ....... rerrod) ""i.!Iou< t.er.k;', ""ior wri"..,
"""""". Lender may r.qui .. inlll'ol!di.,c p.oym:rn in tlJlI of all ,u:ns by Illi. StctIri,y 1"",ummI.
Ihi . oplion ihall IIOl be =ioed by l.eni3cf if sucIo .. i, pfOhibited by ,o\pplkobJe Law.
If e>;<1ti ... ,hi, "l'lion. t.endn shall l ive _ DOIke of occeltnlion. The "",icubal]
p>vido period of "e" 1eo,Ihan 30 dlY. (rom tho dale !he OOlite is I i."" in a:ord""", with s.c.iofI U wimin
which ...... ' pay >II >UII>I ........ r! by lIli, $a:urity r!\$lrum<nl. If rail" o pay 01..... . .." ....
prior to .ho of !hi> pori"". lmder may i._1I\Y _ios pmniu<d by ,hi. Sc<:urily h"lnm"'"
wMoLd fun"", rot;u or o!<:nwI(I on Borro .... r.
19. I\or...".tr'. Rlihl lO ReI" , " lc Arter "''''''I .... 'Ion. If 8IJ.rro...:. meeo: . C<T1';n cond;'ium. B<>rnI.... ,
shall ,i,hl 10 ha of thi. Securily l""rwnenI discon!i....ed a! " 'Y Ii",. prior '0 the earl;'"
of: taj d2Y' before or the Prop<-ny pu .. ""'" 10 ""1 po...:. of oalt _" ,,,,01 in this s.a.,;,y I,..,rument;
(b) ""'h ",I\<:, period .. Applkable Law mi,h! speoify for.he I.rmilWionof8om>,....,., rilhlla rei.. 11'.; or
"'1)' of jud' ..... /II ".IOI"<i", ,hi, Securi,y 10Sltu"' .... ' . Thooe ooroIi,\ons OK till, Borrower: (a)
l.en:Ic, all 'ums which ,ben wouM be d ... urdc, ,hi. Secwi'y In""""",,, ond the NO!< .. if"" """,I ... ,io:< had
occurml: (b) ou,.,. any dcfouil of ..,y olber ............ or log............. ; (c) pay. all pemes inoumd in
enf"",i", Se.;uri.y lnotrumoru. ;nc1ooinl. '""I "'" limi,ee1,a. reasonable a"om<y" leel. proptI"1y ;nsp<cI;"n
ond vll",'ioD ftes. ond ",lin lees ;ncurml for the pIlfPO$C of prolecl;", Lmdor . illlOfaI in lile Pmpmy ond
rip,ts order thi, Securi,y 111110""'''', and (dj 10k"' ...... ac!1on 1$ Lend., .... y , .. rlui .. 10 _ .... thai
J..end<,r', in,e"", ift ,he I'ropeny IIId riJh .. IlI"Idor Ibi, Se<-urilJ Ins' rum.,,,. and 8orm ... ,, obli, .. ion '0 I"Y
the sums ............ by thi. Security ""'tN"""". shlll ,,,;'IIin ... """hantcd. Lmdor may '"'lui", Iho< I"'y
't>tlI .. i"' .. , ........ wms IIId ""'pens<S in <me Or mote of tho rollowinl fonns. u .. 1.."ee1 by L.enQn, (.) <O$h,
(b) ""'..,. orde<: o;cnir.ee1 check. Nnl: check. , ...... rt"I" dl/:ck or ol$h."., """"t. p",vidod II1Y su<h
i. d .. "", upon an ift$!;lIdi<rn r!epooi" m in"' ..... by a fede,al ","'"Y. in>!ru""""alilJ or .... i,y: or (d)
Eloetronio Fund. T.-fa. Upon "'in .............. by Bo........ r. tIIi. Securi,y I",,,,,,,,.,u ond obllplions ..... red
btrdly Ihall ,..",.in fully .lIoeti"" 1$ if no >oc<1.... 'ian had occumd. Ho ..... ,hi. ri,1It '0 reill5l". ihall MI
opply in the""'" of-=1 .... ;.,o onder s.c,;"n 18
20. Sole ..r No .. : C","nll< of w..n Stn"kft"; Tho a paniall .. erm in "'"
1'1",. (lOiettler WIth 'bi, 5<>cwuy I"""""""') can he ..,ld !lOt or mo .. ''''''' Wl,IIOuI plior ""'ice '0
A sal. miJh. ,."ut, in a chan&" in the .... i1y (known as "'" l.om Servioer) lhat qrl)""" PmOOic Payme",.
d ... under 11>0 1'1",. and this Securi,y ond perf""'" ",her molliil" loan lIOfVitins oblip,ioru under
,ho Nore. ,hi, Securi'y Irwrum<nO. ond Applicabl. Low. rniJl>< be on" or moreoil2nS" of "'" l.mn
Servit .. lWda!ee1 10 a sale of ,be Note. II ,be .. i chan;le of tbe l.om Servicor. Borro .... r will be , iven
... ritlen noli"., of ,he change which ""II Slalethe name and add ..... of the ...... Loan Servioer. ,be address.o
""'ictr p.oY"""'" 5IIouid be made and any ,IIhe:r infOflNlion RESPA .-.qui,." in """"""ion with . noliceof
lransfa of servicinl. If tho NO!< i ..,ld and ,be i ... rviced by I Lo ... Sorvicer ",tie, llran ,lie
purthl$er of ,he N",e. ,he .-n, agt" 10..... rvitinl obliplium to IIorrower will n-rnain "';,h ,ho LoaD Soorvioer
or be """Ierred to a """""''''' Loan So",i ... , ond are nor ..... lInal by ,be N",,, pOrt ........ ""I ... OIt1e""'''
pro.ided by , .... N",e PIIrthaser
Nei,lIer Bo"""", not Lender "'"Y <omrn<nO". join. or be joinc<l ' " any jooliciall<!lon (1$ ollller an
indi.idual Iilil"'" or tho nlOII'Ibet of 010lS) ,ha' on"'" from thr other jUrly'. lC'ions putS""'" '" ,his Securi'f
In.. rumen! o. !I' a! olt<za ,Iw tho oth<r pany h .. brn<t.:<l ""y p...,..i,;"n of. '" ""y d ... y 0",""" by .eunn nf.
,hi. s..:uti,y 111>'"""",,,. "",il .""h Borrower or Lender h .. "",irred ,be ",her pmy (wi.h.uob nOli"" gi""" in
<mpli""", with ,be rtq\I, ......... of Ste,ian IJ) 01 weh aile"" brach and affOrded "'" ",he, patly hemo.
reo"""""I,, period . n.r the gi.;n, of such "",ice to ,ake ... ion. Ir Applicable Law "",.ides I lime
perilld "t1ich ..... ,' elilple before <enlin ac110n can be .. ken. INI ,ime perilld will be rk<:m<d '0 be
for putpOI 01 this parq:r>ph. Tho notice of """,I''''ion ond opponunily 10 cu .. , i ." '0 Borrower pIlBtnC
,0 Sec1ion n ond .ho "",ice of """,I.mion i iVCll .0 80"" ..... punuanI '" Sec<iorI 18 5IIali be doemecIlO lOIi.fy
,be "",ice lnd opponunilJ 10 ,He rome,i .. OOI;on ","vi,ium of thi, Settion W.
,
lOQlI . 111 /po" 10 of 11_,,1
200649 26
11. 1I.... rdOO$ Subilta_. A,"oc:d In this Seaion 21: (a) "Haurdous Subill"""'" are d>e Iu,nc""
<lefln! os ,",xi< or bwrdou! sub$tance:s. poIlutan1., Ot ""', .. by Env;ronm.'1Il1 La"' ..... 111< foU"",;",
.<lbmI0;"": iasolint. koroseno, ",her QI' loxic "o"oIOllll! prod ... ,,,, IOo.ic """"'idol ..... hefbicidef.
volatHe soI.ont., matoriol. """,.in;nl osbesI... or formaldehyde, and ""'iOXlive """t,ial.; (b) "Envi",runent.il
Law' meaN fcdonl 1lW$ and I ..... of ,be juri$dicrion !be I'toper!y i, ,,,,, .. ed th>I .. )"'. ID heallh. ",r .. y
Or ..,.i,on", ,," prot,.""",; (e) "lll .. i""""",,,aI O ..... up j""lude> any mpooue ""' ion. _ill O<1ioo, or
.. mo.aI 1IC1;""... defined in Environment .. Law; ..... (d) 0/\ "Environmonlal Con;Ii,i",,' moan OO<"<Iil;""
lhil un ..... Ie. corurilllntlo, or O<hetwile t",..,.. III En.;""""",,," CltamJp.
lJom,w,,, ,hall"", C.. '" or permit !lit praenc<:. """, di.posaI, ."' .. S., or m .... of 1I\y tlauzdOoll'
s..""...,.,., ur ,h",.,.., 10 "', .... any Haunloul SUbstances, on Or in ,hoo !'rope"')' . 1Iorro .... ' shall "'" do, not
o.Uow 11'1)I00I' el .. '" do. anythin, an""'inWIbe PIOp<ny (a) 'hOI i, in ,.,,"'''''' of any Elw;ronmemal Low. (b)
which e","''' an Envi""""""'>l Con;Ii'ioo, '" (t) whictl. doe to Ibe presence. U$t, or Hu:ar6ou$
Subsl>roce. =.tes condition ..... ool ""ly &Ifta:l Ihe valu. of tho Propeny, TIK: prct<di", two senlences
shall IlOl OWly 10 the presero:e ...... Of , tOr' g. OIl tho Propeny ofwnall H...anIou1 SUW""",," "' ..
.... """,rally """,,,,ized 10 be """ropri". 10 normal ..,.jdel11ial .... 0IIIl to mainlenance of tho I'ropeIty
(i""ludin,.IM IlOl limiled 10. h;0zar60U$'uWaDCeS in <;OMurrItr protium).
8on'o .... , shall promplly ,i'. Lende, WIi<ten IIOIin: of (.) any inVCSIiplion. tl.;m. demand. 1'\O$IIil Of
(llilef ""tion by lIlY i<I'.rnmt1OI or regull!O<Y .. ...,y '" pM.... I*'Y invol.ing the Propeny 0IIIl any
U.,..ardooIl. Subst....,. Of E,,,ironm.n,,.1 la ... of which Iw actual bIowIedg (b) .. y Erwi""""""ul
Condition. i""ludin, buI .." limited 10. ""y spillinl. looking. dl",h.'l<. rei.,... o. ,h."", of rei.... of any
Hourdous Substonc:e. oud (el any coo<iilion .... <COI by ,ho presonc<. UK 0' rei..... of HOl'Mdous Subo'O/ICC
which oolv"",",y . ffta:l tho v:tILlO of"'" Propony. 0';' notified by any Eovemrrrn,aI 0,
'.I ullllOr)' aulhori,y. Of any pM.... pUt)'. (/I .. any rerMVal 0' ",her remeo.!i.. ioo OfollY H_dou. SubstarR
' .1inl ,ho Propc:"y i. shall promp,ly ,.u IIlI neceswy mnedial "",iona in
wi'h Environmenlal Law. Noth;nl herein 5llallere ... any obll'''i'''' Oft Lender fo, an En.;I'OfIJIItl1101 Oeanup.
NON.UN 'H;>IlM Borrower and Lender funh<r covenant oud ague .. folio .... :
ll. ""-'''on; lI.elDtdits. Ltndcr shall ",,11.., to 1Iom>" ... prior 10 artd .... 11Qft fono"-Ing
11<>"""'... '. _ " 01 any co . ..... n, ...... V"""<t>' In 'hb s..:urily Imlrum.nl (bu' not prior 10 . oxtl .... lIon
.. nd ... SKII.," II un' ... Applicable la'" provld .. otloe<wiso). Th. notl.., . h. 11 "pt<1fy: (I) II.. de''''' ; Ibl
til< .<,1000 ..... 01..... ' 0 ....... ,he dtf.ul'; (e) I dal no, "'" ,lIan JO tIa), fnom l he""I.,ho: "",let is .... '0
Ilorrower. by .. hleh 'M d.flull "'u" be a"" (d) IU' f.nun: '0 <ure ,be dtfoull "" Or bofon:.be
.pt<1nN In Ih<notlet may .... ul' In aoxtl .... llon otlho: . g .... -.. ..... by Ihls SK_rily l""rum ... , aad
sal. 01 'M Property. Tbe ..00 .... ball furth ... InfOl'1ll 1Iom> ..... of 1""- rlgM 10 rtl ""II' afl cnl ..... '1ool
and ,he right ' 0 bring .... ,rt Kllon 10 I$on1 lho: ""n_u' ..... ofo d<1'aull (H' ""y tSof,.... of
110<1'0"'''' '0 """,,,",,ion a"" .. I . If t""- d.foull b not ouffll on or ber ..... ,h . ... , piflod in , ho: noti.."
Unde, . , iu oJ>l Iool m.y mjul ... Immedi., . "") .... n' io full 0' all 1m'" ... u ..... by ,hi. s..:urily
I""'rum ... ' " 'lIhou' funber demand and may iX',,'er of "Ie . nd a .. y o,b ... .. pemlilial
by Appllcoblo ... ... L<"d ... , h. 1l II< .nUUO<! , ,, <0110<1 . n .. po..... I ...... In .... ".' ''IIlh. ren>ed ...
p>'ld'" In thb Se<;,1ool 22. Inrludlng. "'" not 11m],... ' 0. . 11....... y. r ..... nd "",U ofllll<
"'1_.
If Lmdtt In,ok ... h. po"' ... of"I., I.end .honuoro' .......... Tnt" ... ," uoro' ",rill", notl..,
of ,ho:<><'<U,...... of on ...... of dtf. ul, " nd of Ltnd ........ 1ooI ' OCl .... the Pro""rtyl .. he""ld. T"", ...
.... n ta .... Ihit ""'I '0 he ruordalln ... h """.'y In ...hlth . " y ..... ofille......,....y 10 ..... ,ed. I ........
Or or.... l .. ",all copl.. or"'<""'i ..... p.-oibtd by Appil<ablo"'" 10 8orro>oer I nd 101M o,hor
persons pns<ribecl I>y A",lkal>ln'm>er hon 0<11 lho: Proporty 81 public . udion ' 0 ,ho: hlghes. bldd ... . ,1ho: ,1m. I nd p'''''
ond under lhe , ....... dalRnall In 11.. nollet: of .. Ie In 0 ... .... plraI nd In o.,y order Trus ....
deI ...,i"",. T .... I.., moy p""'po". ... I.or.1I or a"y ofl ho: Property by publ le . ...... ......, ... 1 o"he
II",. . nd pia 01' any """""",If J<btdukd Ie. l..eodrr (II' 11$ d<$il ..... moy PUI'I'Iut.. ,1It Proptrly .'"ny
... 1 .
r
I

I
200 64926
Tnut .. , holl dol;"or to 1M l"',tI>.- r ..... ' .. ' ....". "",voyl", 11>< \"ropert)' with"", ony .., .... an' or
.... monty, u""""",, .... fmplitd. Th ...... '.b In ' br TtaSl .... .... obl ll .... prima ... fdtlK'l' or ,he
'NIh of tho ........ 1:f ",.<k th<rdn. Trull ...... 11 l !>PIy lhe or .. Ie In 1M 1011.,..'1", orllcr:
(I) 10 oil ape .... 01'1... .. ' but "'" Ihniud 10, ra<on.w. Tnasc""' ",, . tt ...... 1_; (bl
10,11, ..... ",I, 8<".,';" 1""1,,, .... .. ,; (hall <jU<$'
TfUSI.. 10 rewn , lhe Propmy lIId 5b>Jl JUlI'eIlder <hi. Seauity ImlTum"", and ai, ..,. .. evidencinJ debt
0<C\Ir<d by S:uriry ]""1'IIl'IItfII 10 TAW.... Tru,,,,e J/ull """""'J' tho Pruperty without ""orran\), 10 ,bo
... ....,n Or ""...".., kgllly "'Iilitd 10 it. lmdcr may char&< su<h penon 0,- I"'/WTII' for
.-.conveyi"1 !lit PropertY. bu1 only if,.,. roo i, ""id 10" 'hi..! 1'*'11 (>uch as the Tru" .. )'Of .. "' .... _red
and til< 01 tho fee i. permitted undor AWI .. >bI. Law. ]f,,,, fcc clwge8I11.,. T .... ' ... LmcIer ... ill opo;"". from lime '0 'ime 0W0i1ll' """"'0 any
TM!'" app<>in1\ I>emmde< by an 1M", ."..." ""OCU1od and .. _,odled by Lender and ,ecotded in tilt- ofr".
of ,Ilt- Rooorder 01 !be C<)Uply in which tbe Propeny is Iocatod. The: ins'"",,",,1 shall """,>in lilt ...... oflhe
oril ina) Tm" .. and 80"""",. ,he: book and pace "here 'hil Soxwily 1n>!rumen1 is and lhe
name and add,.,.. of !be ""'""">01' ""''',... Wi,l>oul ronver"""" of the the .uotn"'" lrust", sh>Il
succeed '0 011 ,be litl po ...... and tonfened upon the Trume hettin and by Applioobl. u .... This
predu", for '''''',iIUliort of lrusla: stWl lov.m '" tilt ."IIISion of 011 Olhet provisions for subsOil",;"".
lS. S'. ' ..... nl or .... L.tndor may ""II.." > r .. not '0 OJ.oeod tho ....... i ....... amounl permillCd
by Applicable \..ow for furnishi", tho st""","", of obliSOlioo .. provi<led by Sec,i"" 294) of the Civil Cede of
Colifomi>.
BY SIGNING IIEWW. IOcqtIS oncIas ..... to the temlS and CO>OIUnl. """,.ined in Ibis
lnstrumem ond in any Rider =,ed by 801"10....." and rtCCrdcd .... b i, .
Wimts>a:
STATE OF C ....
COUNTVOf."
00 --\-JW. \0 ,:2()[)l p
0M\eZ .
} 8.8.
""" .... _"'."" ""_c...mr .... SI .... __
"A ',!hQO J . \)="''6.
.. -.oily "-' '" .... I" _ .. "'" "" .... _ 01 -...."y
_)IC .. IIIo--..n(tl __ oI ...... __ ......
_1 __ ... __
.... ........ 111'-........
.... __ ...... OOfI(.)... ""_""""_
01 ""'"'" tIIO ,,000"1(0) """" "" .. oct "'" -....-.
WInlESS",.,. ........... _ ...
CAU.QIUo'A..so.,p_Iy. r.-k." ><IP_ M .. II:' ..... "'!ITII l/!o,E.'" F ...... JOO!I 11(11 joop 11 0/ 121"'l"}
1111 I Iii
SCHEDULE "An
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
20 064926
~ " ,
l}lE WEST d9 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 71N B!.OCK4 Of THE HANBY AOOITION I ~ THE em OF BISHOP. COUNTY OF
INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNlA.AS PER MAP OF SAjDAODlTION fiLED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 1. PAGE 30 OF MAPS.
IN THE OFfICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT 4
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Recording rcqtlts:cd by:
SERVICLlNK, A OF eHICACO
TlTlL lNSURA"CE COMPANY
When Recorded ""ail To:
NDEll West, LL.C.
15000 Surveyor BouJevard, Sai1e SOO
Addison, Tuu 150019013

DFF2<l090 134001964
CERTJAED TO BE A TRUE AND EXACT COPY
OFTHE ORIGINAI-:rCU1'E1\T RECORDED:
Q7 la Z5
AS INSTRLJ VlENT NUMIlt'R:
'Ur;;9 - ODD:?";> 9
AS BOOK: 4
BY SERVJCEUNK
Trustee Sale No. ; 2009013.4001964 TitK Order No.: 1 DOO9.4
rnJ'ORT ANT NOTICE
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER
DEED OF TRUST
IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEfUND IN YOUR PAYMENTS
IT MAYBE SOLD WITHOur ANY COURT ACTION., and you may ha .... e the lepl right 10 brine your acCQ\.rlt in good.
standing by pilying all of your pas1 due paymenu pl:.Il ?cliTl incii com and within the time pc:rmin(c! by I ...... for rti nsliWemcnt
of )'Our account, whieh is normal ly rive business da),s prior to rhe date set far the sale of your property. No sale: date may be ,ct unti l
thre< months from tnc: dlle: lhis NOlice of l)cfault may be r:eorded (which dalt: of appeau on thIS notIce).
This amount is S10,21&'99 af :z t l:z.tlOO9 and will j"crease until your account becomes current. While: your property is in
roreciosure. yO.J still muS1 pay adler (suc h as insurance and ruu) required by your note and deed of D'\ISI or [1
you fait to make future payments (In the loan, pay tall:cs on the property, provide insurance or. the property, or pay 0Ii)er obJiptions as
required in 1le note a:"'ld deed of 1I'.JSt Of mona,aec:, Ihe beneficiary or mortel2ce may insi sl that you do so in order 10 reinstale your
aca;amt in gQOd stancmg. In addition, th: benefJCivy or mongagce may require as a condifion of reinstatemenl that you provide
wrinttl evidence that you ail senior li ens. prop:ny tiIXeJ, and huaJd insurance: premiums.
Upon your written request. the be1'lCfieiary or mortgagee will give a wrinen itemizat;on or the entire amount you must pay. You
may nat have 10 pay the entire u."1paid portion of account. even lhooeh full payment was demanded, but you must pay all amounts
:n default ;:1 the time p,aylnt:tlI is made. Hcwc\ICJ. you and your benefK:iary or mort&aRet may m:Jtu&Hy agree in writing prior 10 the: rime
Ihe notice or sale is poSlCd (whi ch may I"iC' t be earlier than tOe three monlh period stared above) 10, among other things. ( 1) provKJc
additional time in which to cure the default by transfer of the prcperTy or otheNlise: 01 (2; establish a schedale of pa)'m:nls in order to
CUre your default; CIt both ( I) ,net (2).
rallowinB lhe cKpinrion of the time period referred to in ':he first paDgr.tph of this notice. unless the obligtrion being fon=ckl:sod upon
or a scpu31e wriaen agteement betv.or:en you and your aedilor pe:mics a lOnger peri od, you have only the: !egal right to stop t1'1e sal e of
your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your credil01.
,. ..
9LP
PO q
9
::l
IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST
T"',\ee Sol. No.: Title
To find ouc the a.mount you must pay, or to !I:ra.,ge for payment 10 Slop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foro::;lmure for any
other contlCt :
.""MERICA'S SERVJCfNC
de NDEx WUI, LLC
13000 Survey.,. Sou)evard. Suitt: 500
Addison. Tnu 75001-9013
(166) 195 1851
If you have any questions, you should COntact II lawyer or :he govemmC11tal agency which have insured your loan.
Not'A.ithstanding the fact that your property is ir foreclosure. you may offer your property ror sale provided tr. e $!l Ie is concluded prior
to the: conclusion of the foreclosure.
REMEMBER, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: NDEI' WUI. UC is the oriAm.a1 TruSlee. duly appointed Subslituted Truslee. or
at:[ing as Agent for the TruSlc:c or Bendiciary under a Decci or Trust dilted J01261':006. C::II:ec\lted b)l ALVSDN J . DENK. as Trustor,
III sec:urc obligations in (a\'or of MORTCACE ELECTRONIC REC(STRA TTON SYSTEMS. JNC. (MERS). as Bc:l"ICf,cil!.ry
Rec:ordrd lI/JOllOD6 as Instrument 1\'0. 2006-()OO4926 g( official rcCOtds in the: Office of the Recorder of IN YO County.
C.Ufornil, as more fuJly described on said Deed of Trust Including I Nott(sV Unconditional GUlulnfy "' hich had a principal amount
of $11)4,500,00 thal the bc:nc:rlcial interest under said Deed or Trust and Ihe obligations secured thereby .ace presently held by t'1e
&nefidary; thai a b!t:acl\ of. and derauk in, the obliptioos for wl\ic:h !)lid Deed Df TNSt i! security has occum:d in Ihlt tht payment
has !'lot been :nade of:
THE rNSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AN"D INTEREST WHICH BECAME DUE. ON l1"1120118 ,<I\ND .4.LL SUBSQUEST
'I"STALLMENTS, TOGETHER WHO LATE CHARGl;S AS SET FORTH I" SAID I"OTE AND DEED OF TRUST.
ADVAACES. ASSESSM:ENTS, FEt5. AND/OR TRUSTLE FEES, JF ANY.
NOTHING II" TmS NOTICE SHALL 8E CONSTRUED AS A WAIVER OF ANY FEES OWINC TO THE
BENEFICIARY THE DEED OF TRUST. PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF TIJE LOAN DOCUMENTS.
Thai by reason lhereof, the beneficiary under such deed of rrus:. has exe:uted and delivered 10 Slid agent, II wrinen Decl:rattOn
of De:]Jutt and Demand for SlIme, and has deposited with Slid agent such deed of truSt and all documents evickncing obligations
secured lhI:reby. and has dEdared and dDes declare 811 sums secured thereby immcdiatdy due and pa:,.able and has elected and
does hereby elect to c:aus.c ,tic b'Ust property to sotd 10 satisfy the secUR':d
DATED: lIJ2l20D9
NDE:r Wcst. LLC as A&m1 C.r Beneficiary
u. J.,

By:
Cheryl L. Ashe r
1:6ll 9LI> Ol l:
U;d
NOTICE OF DEFAULT DECLARATION
PlJRSUANf TO CAUFORNV\ CNIL CODE 2923.5
America's Servicing CO"1'all)'
3476 Stateview Bh'd
Fort Mil\ SC 29715
Borrower. AL YSON J DENK
Property Address: 486 N 2ND ST
BISHOP CA 93514
The I.Ildersigna:l mortgagee, bene ficiary, orthe;r oulhorized agent (coUectively, the
"Benelo:iaryj repre",rr and decla= that the requirements ofCA Civi l Code 2923.5 have been
met. This Declaration is required for any residential owner occupied property in which the loan
was aiginated berween January I, 2003 and December 3 J, 2007. Non-owner occupied and
vacant propenies .... exempt from the requirements ofCA Civil Code 2923.5.
One of the relow necessary requirements was mot by the Ben::ficiary:

Dated:
The Benelciary has made contact with the borrower pursuant to CA Civil Code
2923(a)(2). Contlla with the borrower was made in per>on or by telephme to assess the
borrower's financial situation and explore options for tlr borrower to avoid foreol o,.,re.
Due DiliBl'nce to contact the borrower was exercised purswnt to CA Civil Code
2923.5(g)(2) by the Beneficiary.
The has s,,"rendered theprop..-ty as evidenced by either a leuer confirming the
surrenelet' or de6\'ery of the la!ys to tlr property to the mongagee, TruSlee, beneficiary, or
authaited a",nt p\rsuant toCA Ci,jJ Code 2923.S(hXI) .
The borrCM'er has contracted l'ith an organizalim, per9:ln. or entity whose primal)'
business is advising people who ha\e decided to leave their homes on how to extend the
process and avoid their contractual obHS!tions to mortgagees or beneficiaries
pUr>uantlO CA Civil Code2923.5(h)(2) .
The borrower has filed for be.nkrupcy and the proceedings have rot been finalized
pursuant 10 CA Code 2923.5(h)(3) . .
W"O""
Amerta'SserviCillJoo; pan;;
9LP

EXHIBIT 5
SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE
'.
Recording requcsted by:
SERVlCELlNK, A DIVISION OF CHICAGO
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
When Recorded Mail To:
NOEl. West, L.L.c.
I SOOO SQrveyor Boulenrd. Suite 500
Addison
l
Te .. s 75011-9013
* () () C) () 1 4 ()
SUB200e0134001964
,- --,
000, CM!Y Recorder
lYl!/y A, ROFER Co Recorder Offiee
Q9C- 2009-0000818-00
.. .--ell Nu.b.,. SItS33
.... , 1!7. 2Ile9 111"41 ,11
$1." . S'U $1.1t1: ItiC sa "
SYS $2 " : SST $1.": .
Ttl Pd $IUt __ 78928
D"O/Rl/1-2
MIooie this lillO for Recorckr'J ...: GIlly
Trustee Sale No.: 100901.140tIl964 Title Order No. : '!100094
SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE
WHEREAS, ALYSON J. DENK was the original Trustor. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Yl-1lS the original Trustee. and
MORTCAGE ELECTRONIC RECISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS) was the original BenefICiary Recorded on 1113011006.1
Instrument No. 1006-0004926 of official records in the Office of the Recorder of INYO County, C.llronlt, as more fully described on said
Deed of Trust.; and WHEREAS, the undersigned is the present Beneficiary under said Deed of Trust, and WHEREAS, the undersigned
desires to substitute a new Trustee under said Deed of Trust in place and instead of said prior Trustu.
NOW. THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby substitutes. ND[lI West, LLC., WHOSE ADDRFSS IS: 15000 Survtyor BotIlevard,
Suite 500, Addison, Tens 15OOJ-,.I3, as Trustee under said Dctd o(Trusl. .
Whene't'er the context haeof 50 requi res, the ITWculine gwdcr includes the feminine anO'or neUler, and the sin&ul .. numlxr includes the
plural.
DATED:
03116/2009
State or South Catalin. }
County York}
Wells Fargo B1l1k NA, Attomey in Fact for DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TItUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET
SECUR IZATION CORPORATION lltUST2007-HE2
--
On 03/1612009 before me, ' NOIIUy Publk:, personally appeared Anne
Neely who proyed to me on the basis ofsatisractory evidtnCt to be the persoo(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me thai helshe/they executed the same in hislher/their 8uthorized"cipacity(ies). and thai by his/hcrlthcir sienature(s} on
the inslI'I.Imcnt the pcnon(s). Of the entity upon bchalrorwflich the pcnon(s) acted, executed the mstrument.
(!fsigned and notarized in South Carolina):
I eertify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Sta(e or South Carolina that the foregoing pIoRgnph is true and correC1.
WITNESS my hand and official.seal.
Si&MlUfC: l:\OAO ,j . r
'3)
PIocorl.'1

EXHIBIT 6
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF SOT
NDE, West, L.L.C
15000 Sun:eyor Boulevard, Suite 500
Addison. Texas 7500 19013
Telephone: (866) 795-1852
Tclecopier: (972) 6617800
AFFIDAVIT
TRUSTEE'S SALE NUJl.mER: 20090 13400 1964
I. Brooke Ewing, the undersigned, a United States Citizen declare that:
r am an employee, oyer the .ge of eighteen years, of
NDEx West, L.L. C., andlor NDEX,
whose business :Jddrcss is:
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500, Addison., TeKas 750019013
]n eompli.nec with Section 2934a(b) of the Civil Code of the State of California, Nolice has been
given to the prior trustee Ihen of record, that NDE:. West, L.L.C. has been substituled as lruslee
under the Deed of Trust descdbed in tbe attached copy of Substitution of Trustee and a copy of
said Substitution of Trustee has been mailed prior 10 Ihe recording thereof, in the manner
provided in Section 2924(b) of the Civil Code of the Stale of California to all persons to whom a
copy of the Nolice of Default would be required to be mailed by the provisions of said section.
NDEx W.st, L.L.C., andlor MOE){
March 25 2009
DATED
Srolte of TEXAS
Count)! of DALLAS
On March 25, 2009 before me. Rachel N. Notary Public, persol1;1l1y appeared Brooke Ewing perscmal1y known 10 me
(or proved 10 ltIe on the b:1Sis of s8!isf1lctory c:v idcr.ce) ;:0 be the Fc:-son(s} whose namc(s} is/are subscribed 10 within
inSlTUment and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed Ibe same in his/her/their a.uthorized cap.ilcity(ies), and Ihat by
his/hcrltheir signClture{s) on the inslrument the person(s), or tile: entity upon behalf or which. Ihe pers,:,r.(s) acted. c:'tccuted the
inslrument.
WIT;\lESS my hand :md ofliciil ] seLl!.
SignDturc: __ (5.,,)
My commission expires: _____ ______ ___ _

SBC20090t34001964
9LP

EXHIBIT 7
ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
.,
Recording requested by.
SERVICELINK. A DIVISION or CHICAGO
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
When RttOrded Mail To:
NDEx West, L.LC.
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suill' 500
Addbo_. Tun 750119013
1IIElllllllllnnlllllllill
ASSG20090134001964
UIIUIiIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI Nil
INYO I County}ecorder
MRY A. ROPER Co Recorder Offiet
DOC- 2009-0000767-00
cn.ck ",,-"r 5ae46
_day. APR 01 . 2ee9 10 , 21 , 59
"Ie $1.":$21 .. ... IU C $5 . "
SYS $\.": SST 11. .. :
Tt I Pd sue Itr-eeeee7eaJ6
DMD/R1/1-1
Sak No.: 20090134001964 Title Order No.: '.100094
ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby granl$, assigns and transfers to DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE.2 all
benefICial interest undl!r that certain Deed of rrust dated .812612006. executed by ALVSON J. DENK, as Trustor to
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA'KY, Trustee, and R.rdcd OD 11J3t12006 at Inrtrummt No. 2006-
000491' o(Offici.1 Records in the County Recorder's office of INYO County, California. Describing land thuein: AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED OF TRUST MENTIONED ABOVE.
To&ether with the note or notes themn described or referred to, the mont)' due and to become doe thereon with
interest, and all rights accrued Of to 1IC(;ruc: un<kr said Deed of Trust.
Da1<d
State of
County of
MAR 19 2009
MORT NIC
STRATION SYST S, INC. AS
OMINEE FOR DECISION ONE
PANY,LLC
Stephe Asslstaut Secretary
Before me F5<tL.c Je"J) Notary Public, on this day pcnonally
appeared Stephn C. Porter. who is the Auistant SKretary of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS. INC. AS NOMINEE FOR DEOSION ONE MORTGAGE COI\o1PANY, LLC, IS corponlion, on
behalf of iaid corporation, known to me to be the penon whose namt is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged to me that helshe execute<! the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
Given under my hand and Kalofofrtee thiS _ _
My Commission Expires: Notary Public Signature
7..--(424 f) J.q(J IkuzO/1Jn
ESTHER JEAN HERNANDEZ Printed Name of Notal)' Public
(im) NoIa'Y Public. SIal. of Texas
My
Page l ofl

EXHIBIT 8
NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE # 1
Recording requested by:
SERVICELINK. A DIVISION or CHICAGO
TITLE JNSURANC COMPAriY
NOEl West, LLC.
lSOIO SunreyGr Bo.""".rd, Suite 500
Additon. Telu 75001-911)
t864S) "5-18'2
110111111111111111111
NOTS20090134001964
Trustee S3lc No. : 2U09UIl4UtI964
rlllllllllllWlln UHIDIIIIIIIIII
INYO,
IIARY A. Co Recorder Office
DOC- 2009-0001381-00
CNck ......... 1,...12
!!AT 22. _ 11,42,43
"IC ,1. .. : &21 .. ... t REC $e . M
SYS S1."I$5T II.M:
T\1 Pd $8." Nbr-MIM7!72S
D"O/R1/1-1
Tille Order No.: 1001904 FHAIVA/PMI No.:
NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE
YOU AflE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED 1012612006. UNLESS VOU TAKE ACTION TO
PRo'rECT YOUR PROPER'f'Y. IT MAV BE SOLD AT A PUBUC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE
NATURE OFTI-I[ PROCt: EDINC AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWVER.
NOEs WHI, lLC, tI$ dul y llppOinted Truscce under and punuanr 10 Deed of Trust Rtnrdrd o. 1I1l112006.s Inslrwmenl No.
of officiol retards in the offlCc of the County Recorder of lNVO County, Stale of CALIFORNIA.
EXECUTED BY: ALYSON J. D[Nk,
WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO HIGHEST BIDDER fOR CASH. CASHIER'S CHECKICASH EQUIVALENT or ocher
ronn ofpaymcnt oulhOrizcd by 2924h(b). (piyablc at rime orsale In lawful money oflhe United SUlles).
DATE OF SALE: 0610812009 TIME or SALE: 12:00 p)1
PLACOFSALE: AT TJn: ENTRANCE TO INYG-MONO TITLE COMPANY, 873NORTH MAIN BISHOP
CA.
Sl'HEIIT ADDRESS and other common deslanlltion. ifflfl Y, of the teal property dcscnbed above IS purponed 10 be:
436 NORTH 2ND STREIT, 81SHOP, CALIFORNIA 93514
APNff: 11-105-16
The undersilJned Trustee disc:loims any liabiliry for My illCOfTeCtness of the streel IIddrcss and othes" eommon desianation, if any .
shown herein. Said sale wil l be made, but wilhoul: covenant Of worranty, expressed or implied, retardinB til lc, possession, Of
cncumbrances, 10 pay the: rCm#ining principal aim of the: wc(s) secured by said Dec:d of Trust, with interest thereon, 15 provided in
laid note(s), advances, under the tenTll of said Occd of TIUJI, feu, charges and expenses of lhe: Trus1ec: ilOd of the trusts Cre3lcd by
l :aid Deed of Trust. The 10f81 amount ol the unpaid balance of the obligation seelred by the property 10 be $Old and reasonable
estimlled costs, cspenses and advances at the time of die ini tial publical:ion of the Ncw:icc of Sale is DI',501.86. The beneficlluy
under said Deed of TruSI heretOfore cltcl;utcd and delivered 10 the: undel'li"JCd 11 wrillC" DccIWl IKm of Default I1Ild Demand for Sole,
and wriuen Notice of Default and Election ( (I Sell. T'he undc:T5iJ-Md caused said NOlice: of Default and Election to Sell 10 be n:oordcd
in the covnty when- the real property i5 IQaued.
FOR TRUSTEE SALE INFORMATION PLEASE CALL:
ACENCY SALES'" POSTINC
321. EJ. CAMINO RE"I .. SUlft: 200
IRVINE.CA 92602
11 .... 73o.Zn7
_.Ip1Uap.lM
NOEl: WHI, LLC. MAY BE ACTINC AS A 08T
COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A
DE8T. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL
BE USED FOR TItA T PURPOSE.
NDt. W .... '_L.C ...
:::-::-:-:--.,,=:--___ __ ______ Dated: O5I19nf09
QY: RllIIdy Middlelon

EXHIBIT 9
TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE # 1
761')878181')5
INVO COUNTY RECORDER
PAGE I'll 11')2
., R..cE:tjrding lequetlte.d by:
NDt:x w .. \ .. \ " C.
15000 Surveyor 80al"lr4, Suitt 5(10
Adctb:lln. TnlS 75001-9013
When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement 10:
DEUTSCHE BAm: NA nONAL TRUST .ct.1
c lo "'MERICA' S SERYlClNO CQMP"NY
7485 NEW HORIZON WAY IIWG. )
FREDl'RICK, MD 21701
IlmmllllllnlllllllllRl1
TDUS20090134001964
, .' '
TNstec Sole No.: lOO901340019fj4
--- I . .
INYO, County Recorder
. MRV A, ROPER Co Recorder Ornee i
. DOC- Z009-00025 t 5-00 '
Check N""'" 13_
AUG 17, 2eet 14 ,ee ,2!
' "IC SI." :S2I SI."' IIC SB ."
SVS S2 . " ' SST $1 . 11 '
Ttl Pd $l1.me Nbr-eeee073348
'"
DrtO/Rl/1-2
above mis lint -for ReQOrdcr's usc only
Title: OnJer No.: '10ot!H
TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE
The undersigned gtantO!' dc<IDrCJ:
I) The Grllntee WAS ,he forec:l",in&
2) The amount orthe debt wtU- eost WIl
3) The ;lmount JNid by the. gromfOe llt the trvsfft sale was
4) The doeumcm"Y ","Sr., ''''' ;. N/ A
5) Said property is in the oil)' of BISHOP
APN#
SJII,714.03
5212,500.00
ND'EX West. L.L,C. t as lne chJl)lBppointed Trultee \lndcr the Deed of Trust described, d0C3 herc},y If.nt :md CI:Ol\vey,
but wjchout c:oveno.nl nr warranty, express or implied. to:
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 11IUST COMl'ANY, AS 11IUSTIE fOR RSI ASSET
Sl;CURmZA TION CORPORATION TRVST lOII71lF.2
(herein coned (iran\c'C),IU orb ris'n, title and in and to that certain prnperty siruOlted in the County of fNYO, St;Jtt: of
Califomia. described os '
THE WEST 49 fEET Of \.OTS 5 AND 7. TN 8lQCK 4.0P .. Tt\e HANBY.ADDInO!< TN THE CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY
OF TNYO. STATe Of CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP' OF SAID PILED FOR RECORl) TN BOOK " PAGE JO OP
MAPS, TN THE OFl'lCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
AI'!<: 0''0506
TlI1S INSTlIUIIlK1' IS RECOROED AT THE
REQUEST OF SE!MCaJNKAS AN
"CCOMMODATlON ONLY-IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXAMINED AS TO flS 8<EC\I11ON OR AS
TO ITS EfFECTS UPON Ttn.
(OOIl4Jtl8) l .... orf. I'
MAli, Ti\X STATI!'M'l:NTS AS D1RT"cn:V ABOVE
. . .
--
VVI ... .J I LUUJ l.J. LO 1000 I tH,!!' ':>
INYO COtJ-JTV RCORDER
PAGE 82/82

. 2eeseN2sIs ,
Trustee 54110 No. : lOO9013400U ... Title Order No.: 41000'"'
"'I;crrALS:
This ocmveyancc is made to the POWW:T1 eonfm'ed ultnn by that cmain Deed of Tru!'Ot dared 10/161lOO6 and
by ALYSON J. DENK Trustot(s), and ReCorded on 11i311l00tt 1t!.!trutnfttf .No. 2006.oo0492d of official record.
or INYO Couny. C .. lifornio1.. .nd after futflllmcnl of 1M conditionupeciflcd in said Deed or Trust authori-d,,& this conveyance.
'. . .
Default R.t sc::t forth in a Nnl,cc: of and E.Ict::tion to Sen which reconlcd in the Orfice of 111<: R'01'der of ,.id
County. and such defalllt still u ;lted at the time of SOle.
1\1\ orlaw the m.Jilinc of "Wit, of notil::tl or the pubficDt;on ofa eOPY of the of Ocrnlt or the
delivery ofche copy ofthc Notice arO.fauh and the postin8 and pubHcati('ln of copies oflhe Notice Or;t Sale have beC!n
compile<! with,
Tnlstee, in compliance with Aid Notice ofTl'UStee's Sale and in cxc-n;i:sc or ill powcn under gid Deed of Trust, sold the herein
property.t publie ;ruction on 0'11011009_ Grantee, bei,., the hiahclt bidder at said sDle, became d'te pun::m.ser or".id
property for the amount bid heine: 21l,508 ... in 1'''lIN! money orthc United States, or br credit bid irlhc waa the
bc:ncficiary of said Deed the l ime of said jru$f.ec'", Sale.
DA ftD; 0811112009
NDE" Wei., L ..... C II. TrutH
____________________ A.utl\oriztd Agent
811112009
Rllldy
DAT!D
Srallof TEXAS
Counly Dr DALLAS
On 8/1112009 ""_ mo, Josle R. MoUna Nola,)! Public, pmonolly
appeared Randy Middleton pt:rwnally known to me (or proved to me nn the btl! i! of evidcfl) to be the pcrson(,) whose
name{l) iYllre subscn.bed to ehe within instrument and acknowtcdced to me dot.t the in hislherltheir
.uthorized capaciry(ies), and that by bislhcr/their Jignaturc;:(s) on the the person(s.l. or the CTlUry upon behalf of the
pc1"1on(3) c'uc\J!led the
My commissioll capire ," ______________ _
JOSIE R, MOliNA
Notary Publl<:
S..,.oIT ....
My COtnm. e.-p. , ' -"'2011
Pfllt 1 flf 1
/
DECLARATION
Chi"" Drown ,of AmofI<a'.krYI<l.,eo.."..,
<!odor _ ponal'l ot pe<jUr'l. undo< "'" I .... of"'" 51...
fColiforot .. tII.oI ....... I, u .. MIl carroa:
_lL...II'" _ .... ""' .....
ofCorpcnlioo _ ... 1aripnrJ IOCalI""''' CIvil _
_ 192Ultt.Io"""",IIIII ... Id",,"'_""'_IoIN<Miooo.fSoloIo
-

Tk\ilootf ... ro. .... NoIia olSolo II __ (0) "'CIvIl 0*
_lnl ..U __ _292332",
mJ",.

EXHIBIT 10
NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE
Re:Trustee sale No. 20090134001964
Servicing LoWl Number: 1300025613
NOTIFICATION OF ERROR AND REQUEST TO CURE
Attention Cberyl Asber ofNDex West Wld ASC Loss Mitigation Department -
I am inquiring to the mistake that seems to be occurring with regards to the trustee sale Wld "notice of bank
ownership" posted August 18, 2009. My roommates called me Wld reported that they received a notice
saying the bank now owned this property. Well of course, I said there must be a mistake; ASC has been
diligently working on a loan modification. verified by all of the paperwork 1 sent them back on May 28,
2009 Wld June, 2 2009. The following correspondence we have had over the next 2 months indicate that
ASC was still working on it, postponing the sale date until the 10Wl modification was ready for presentment
to me. I have received no correspondence regarding the 10Wl modification nor any contact initiated to me
by the negotiator as promised. Secondly I bave made offers to pay the debt, but was told "we wiu not
accept payment until the loan modification is complete".
As of 811912009 I spoke with Candy, Agent ID EGW in ASC's Loss Mitigation Department, and asked ber
to report back to me in a recorded phone conversation what she had in the computer records as to what may
have gone wrong.
Sbe verified that the Loan Modification bad been approved as of711712oo9, but the paperwork was never
sent out. This was recommending a Forbearance Plan.
She also reported to me that as of 712012009 the Sale had been postponed for a third time, and that
papeIWork was never sent out.
She reported to me the Investor approved the Loan Modification. as of 8/412009, and requested a few
months be paid in the new loan terms before the Forbearance Plan was to begin. This paperwork was also
never sent out.
As of 8/ 1112009 the house was sold back to the Bank, Deutsche Bank; because non of the prior paperwork
was sent.
I am requesting a full investigation I to the mistake, and correction of the error. I am also requesting a full
accounting from your phone and computer records in point by point format as to the actions and dates of
where exactly the mistakes were made.
I appreciate the prompt reply to this. You may send those records to Alyson J Denk 486 N. 2'" Street
Bishop, California [93514].
Thank you for remedying this error.
A < ~ " ~ ~ AW r )L-

EXHIBIT 11
RECISSION OF TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE
. .
Recording Requested By:
NDEx West. LLC
N DEx West. LLC
15000 Surveyor Blvd.
Suite 500
Addison. TX 75001
TS No.: 20090134001964
Order No.: 100094
RBCOIding Requested
ServlceUnk
1111\11 I I 111111111111111111 11111 11111111
INYO, Recorder
A. ROPER Co Recorder Office
DOC- 2009-0002854-00
Check 13834Z
nd SEP 14 2009 15:36:03
a
V
S
1.00 : S2I' $1.00 : REC $6 . 00
SYS $2 . 00:SST $1 . 00 :
Ttl Pd $11 00 Nbr-0000073852
. KRF/Rl/1-2
Space above this li ne is for Recorder's usc only
NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE
(Civil Code Section 1058.5(b
NDh West, LLC as duly appointed Substituted Trustee, under a Deed of Trust date 1012612006, executed by ALYSON J.
DENK,'s Trustor, to secure obligations in favor of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(MERS), as Beneficiary Recorded on 11130/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0004926 of official records in the Office of lIIe
Recorder of INYO County, California, as more full y described on said Deed of Trust.
On 512212009 NDEx West, L.L.c. recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale as Instrument Number 2009-1387 in the Office of the
INYO County Recorder, stating its intent to sell the property at public auction on June 8, 2009. The sale was lIIen
continued to August 10, 2009 at which time the sale was held as scheduled, and the property is described as follows :
Conunonly known as: 486 NORTH 2ND STREET
BISHOP, CA 93514
Legal Description:
APN: 01-105-06
THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE
CITY OF BISHOP, COUNTY OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID
ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFiCE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 01-105-06
A Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded on 8117/2009 as Instrument Number 2009-0002515 in the Office of the INYO
County Recorder purporting to transfer title to:
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET
SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2
NOW THEREFORE, by lIIe recordation of this Notice of Rescission of Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, lIIe undersigned, as duly
substituted trustee under the aforesaid Deed of Trust, does hereby rescind that certain Trustee's Deed Upon Sale recorded on
8/17/2009 as Instrument Number 2009-0002515. NDEx West, L.L.C. as substitured trustee has been instructed to rescind
said Trustee's Deed Upon Sale for loss mitigation.
H:INDExWestlkell ieboICA_RTDUS.rpt

EXHIBIT 12
NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT AND LETTER ROGATORY
Savannah Alyson Jackson
AKA Alyson J. Denk
r---
Postal Address: 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150
lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Phone: 951-246 9333
December 25, 2009AD
--
I
John G. Stumpf, President and CEO
Wells Fargo
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT
Subject: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT DUE TO FRAUD BY
MISREPRESENTATION & NOTICE TO PREFECT SECURITY INTEREST
IN HONOR FOR SETTLEMENT
Subject Property Address: 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514
Loan Mortgage Number: 2260061037264 - Deed of Trust
Dear Mr. John G. Stumpf,
This is an important Notice to infonn you of the MISCONDUCT of agents in your charge_
The appointed Trustee for the alleged Loan claimed is Anne Neely of your Bank's servicing agent,
NDEx West LLC, 1500 Surveyor Blvd Suite 500, Addison Texas 75001-9013, has documented
false allegations committing mail fraud in regards to the loan aforementioned_
On November 20, 2009, Savannah Alyson Jackson lodged a complaint with NDEx
LLC, and a letter of Qualified Written Request. She received no response.
This dishonor has prompted a response from Savannah Alyson Jackson to you today to notifY
you of the misconduct of those parties responsible for the proposed action to sell the property_
1
Prior to this communication, the alleged Beneficiary agent Cheryl L. Asher had claimed that
Savannah Alyson Jackson's "Mortgage" was in default and sent and recorded in the Office of the Inyo
County Recorder a Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 under
Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964. Savannah was intimidated by the words written in bold;
REMEMBER, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION.
Anne Neely acting as Trustees Sale Officer, recorded in the Office of County Recorder Inyo
County, Substitution of Trustee on March 16,2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964.
Brooke Ewing declared by Affidavit, as an employee ofNDEx West LLC claiming notice has
been given in compliance with sec. 2934a (b) of civil code, to the prior Trustee, that NDEx West LLC
has been Substituted as Trustee and a copy mailed to the recording thereof, in the manner required by
law to all persons to whom a copy of the Notice of Default would be required.
Savannah Alyson Jackson acquired help through the services of a Forensic Debt Auditor, to
evaluate what the status really was with their alleged Mortgage.
While it may appear that Savannah Alyson Jackson was not openly registering her lien interest
in her home and property every 30 days, by making a lien interest/investment deposit (otherwise
referred to as a mortgage payment), be assured that she has always maintained and defended her
interest by occupation of her property.
The non-response from your company does not comply with the Qualified Written Request
demanded in Savannah Alyson Jackson' s letter, as none of the information requested whatsoever has
been received. No claims by the loan servicing office have been made nor challenge nor rebuttal to
the letter, which leaves only one conclusion, that Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells
Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC and their agents have neither security
interest nor lien right to the property nor was proof provided to support their claim position. It appears
NDEx West LLC have assumed the alleged Deed of Trust is still a valid security instrument, and that
the Promissory Note (hereafter NOTE) has not been discharged by the alleged Lender, who endorsed
the NOTE and collected its full value, according to the Lenders pre-sale agreement with the
Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Through the information gathered by Savannah Alyson Jackson ' Forensic Debt Auditor, it has
come to their notice that BEFORE the Lender or Bank can make any claim of possession to the
property, by presumption or assumption through an alleged default thus applying the alleged security
instrument (Deed of Trust), they must establish the "Holder in Due Course" of the NOTE. If this
NOTE is secured by the Deed of Trust, then and only then, can the true identity of the 'Person
Entitled to Enforce the Security Instrument' according to UCC 3-302(e) can the Lender or alleged
holder of the note, make any such claims and proceed to foreclose on a property.
This correspondence will serve to memorialize Savannah Alyson Jackson's dispute and Right
to Cancel the Loan, aforementioned. This letter rogatory is also an attempt to establish confidential
commercial information of known violations from the Audit and to identify unknown violations and
crimes through this disclosure process using the following federal and state laws, including, but not
limited to, the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"),
UCC 9-210, the Financial Accounting Standards Board codes and this Conditional Acceptance
Letter Rogatory.
2
Letter of Oualified Written Request
Please see attached Letter of Qualified Written Request that has to-date been left unrebutted,
by the Bank' s Servicing Provider. (Addendum A)
This letter also serves as a NOTICE TO RESCIND the above-referenced alleged mortgage
loan as it is believed to be founded on Fraud by Misrepresentation in Ab Initio. Please be advised that
the Lender' s original security interest in the above referenced property is now void, unless you, Mr.
Stumpf have information to the contrary of which Savannah Alyson Jackson does not believe exists.
All Rights Reserved
A copy of the Limited Power of Attorney (Addendum B) has been attached to this Letter for
your convenience so that all communication in the future can be processed through the undersigned,
Felicity Eubanks at the above address and phone number.
Felicity Eubanks (POA) seeks your immediate and personal intervention into this matter as
Savannah Alyson Jackson pledges this bond of peace to you in all communications. Savannah A1yson
Jackson accepts your bond of peace in all your communications. Savannah A1yson Jackson hereby
reserves all rights and abandons none, also rescinds all signatures and revokes all Powers of Attorney
for agents of Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation
and NDEx West LLC by presumptions and assumptions or otherwise.
Savannah Alyson Jackson trusts this communication with you will prevent further damages to
her, to your company and to any other parties who appear to claim an interest in her private life,
liberty, and property.
This notice and agreement is presented to you, in peace, in your private and personal capacities.
Conditional Acceptance
I. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accept that the alleged Beneficiary MERS agent
Cheryl L. Asher, did not commit perjury nor fraud by misleading, the Recorder of Inyo
County, California in filing the 'Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in
February 2009 upon proof of claim that MERS acting as Beneficiary and NDEx West LLC
acting as Trustee idd show that either are the "holders in due course" of the NOTE (evidenced
by exhibiting the instrument) or did show authorization as agents, to do so, according to ucc
3-501 (bX2).
Savannah Alyson Jackson believes when her NOTE was endorsed by the Lender 'without
recourse' all her obligations to the NOTE and Security Instrument (Deed of Trust) were fully
discharged under 3414 (e) of the California Commercial Code as a disclaimer of liability for
the drawer/maker to pay the Note and that the Lender has made material alterations to the
Promissory Note without the authorization or consent of Savannah A1yson Jackson, thereby
discharging the obligation of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust under 3407 (1)(b) of the
California Commercial Code.
3
2. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Anne Neely ofNDEx West LLC did not
commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading her into believing that she still owes a valid
debt upon proof of claim that the Lender gave her consideration of money otherwise a loan
prior to her signing the NOTE that claimed in paragraph 1. BORROWER' S PROMISE TO
PA Y "In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay u. s. $ 304,500.00 (this
amount is called "Principal ''), plus interest, to the order of Lender. " and that the Lender could
show in their bookkeeping ledger accounts pursuant to (GAAP) this amount having been
deposited into Savannah Alyson Jackson' account or similar transaction before the day
Savannah Alyson Jackson signed the Note.
3. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that NDEx West LLC did not violate TILA
and RESPA laws, by not providing the Qualified Written Request information outlined in her
Notice of November 20th 2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC made a honest
attempt to resolve the complaint in writing.
4. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Anne Neely, the Trustee Sale Officer of
NDEx West LLC, did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading the public and
prospective buyers, in selling her home at a Trustee Sale upon proof of claim that Anne
Neely had full consent from Savannah Alyson Jackson to do so, and that they were not
following a standard banking foreclosure procedure by disregarding Savannah Alyson
Jackson's Notice of Rescission and dispute over the alleged debt.
5. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the Lender disclosed all relevant loan
application information pursuant to Federal and State Laws including but not limited to TILA,
RESPA, REG Z and UCC 9-210 upon proof of claim that she was told their NOTE was to
be endorsed by the Lender, to fulfill the pre-sale arrangement of the pending Note with the
identified Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the buyers.
6. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the NDEx West LLC alleged Trustee and
any other affiliates regarding this matter have not violated U.S.C. Title 12 Chapter 38A "Single
Family Mortgage Foreclosure Act", 3755 ' Prerequisites to Foreclosure' whereby, only the
Secretary of HVD as holder of a single family mortgage may foreclosure upon proof of claim
that NDEx West LLC of California and the alleged Trustee NDEx West LLC and any other
affiliates have received a letter from the Secretary of HUD allowing them permission to
foreclosure on Savannah Alyson Jackson ' s single family home.
7. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Decision One Mortgage Company LLC,
as the alleged Lenders had not sold the Promissory Note as collateral for the obligation or
security of the Deed of Trust and has retained legal or equitable interest in the collateral under
9318 (a) of the California Commercial Code upon proof of claim that anyone can produce
the original wet ink note unaltered and without endorsement.
4
Opportunity to Cure.
Savannah Alyson Jackson requests your response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this
Notice, with your rebuttal in the form of an affidavit challenging point by point, under Penalty of
Perjury, under your full Commercial Liability (as this leiter will be used in a Court of law) addressed
to Savannah AJyson Jackson, c/o Felicity Eubanks, 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92532. Your silence will be taken as acceptance, acquiescence and your tacit
agreement with all seven (7) requests for proof of claim made in this notice, to perfect a security
interest in Savannah AJyson Jackson's name and favour, in accordance with UCC 9-309 through 9-
318.
If, after careful review of this letter and the related accounting, you fully agree that Savannah Alyson
Jackson has an authenticated security interest, and that their home has been paid for in full and there
has simply been an accounting error. Without reprisal litigation or dishonor, the remedy for settlement
and closure in this matter, would comprise of the following:
I. The account Mortgage Loan Agreement # 2260061037264 is set-off to show a zero balance on the
account.
2. All previous payments made into Savannah A1yson Jackson's loan escrow account be transferred
into an appointed Attorney's Trust Account.
3. A complete Re-conveyance of the Property located at 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop,
CALIFORNIA 93514, as required under the Deed of Trust.
4. All derogatory items related to this matter shall be removed from all credit reporting agency
records.
5. All recording made with the Inyo County recorder in regard to the aforementioned Notices be
vacated from the Recorder oflnyo County, California.
Respectfully, without ill-will, aforethought, frivolity, malice, or vexation,
cc: Laura Kruger
Without prejudice
UCC 1-207; 1-103
Executive Mortgage Specialist
Office of the President
MAC X2302-02J
I Home Campus
Des Moines, IA 50328-0001
Savannah A1yson Jackson
by Felicity Eubanks, POA
Trustee and Authorized Representative
5
Savannah Alyson Jackson
AKA Alyson J. Denk
Postal Address: 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Phone: 951-246 9333
December 25, 2009AD
John G. Stumpf, President and CEO
Wells Fargo
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
LETTER ROGATORY
Subject: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT DUE TO FRAUD BY
MISREPRESENTATION & NOTICE TO PREFECT SECURITY INTEREST
IN HONOR FOR SETTLEMENT
Subject Property Address: 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop, CALIFORNIA 93514
Loan Mortgage Number: 2260061037264 - Deed of Trust
Dear Mr. John G. Stumpf,
This is an important Notice to inform you of the MISCONDUCT of agents in your charge.
The appointed Trustee for the alleged Loan claimed is Randy Middleton of your Bank's servicing
agent, NDEx West LLC, 1500 Surveyor Blvd Suite 500, Addison Texas 75001-9013, has
documented false allegations committing mail fraud in regards to the loan aforementioned.
On November 20, 2009, Savannah Alyson Jackson lodged a complaint with NDEx
LLC, and a letter of Qualified Written Request. She received no response.
This dishonor has prompted a response from Savannah Alyson Jackson to you today to notify
you of the misconduct of those parties responsible for the proposed action to sell the property.
Prior to this communication, your agent Randy Middleton had claimed that Savannah Alyson
Jackson's "Mortgage" was in default and sent and recorded in the Office of the lnyo County Recorder
a Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February 2009 under Trustee Sale No.
20090134001964.
Randy Middleton acting as Trustees Sale Officer, recorded in the Office of County Recorder
lnyo County, Notice of Trustee Sale on June 2, 2009 under Trustee Sale No. 20090134001964. They
claimed right of possession under the Deed of Trust unless Savannah A1yson Jackson took action to
protect her property.
Savannah A1yson Jackson acquired help through the services of a Forensic Debt Auditor, to
evaluate what the status really was with their alleged Mortgage.
While it may appear that Savannah A1yson Jackson was not openly registering her lien interest
in her home and property every 30 days, by making a lien interest/investment deposit (otherwise
referred to as a mortgage payment), be assured that she has always maintained and defended her
interest by occupation of her property.
The non-response from your company does not comply with the Qualified Written Request
demanded in Savannah A1yson Jackson' s letter, as none of the information requested whatsoever has
been received. No claims by the loan servicing office have been made nor challenge nor rebuttal to
the letter, which leaves only one conclusion, that Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells
Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation and NDEx West LLC and their agents have neither security
interest nor lien right to the property nor was proof provided to support their claim position. It appears
NDEx West LLC have assumed the alleged Deed of Trust is still a valid security instrument, and that
the Promissory Note (hereafter NOTE) has not been discharged by the alleged Lender, who endorsed
the NOTE and collected its full value, according to the Lenders pre-sale agreement with the
Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Through the information gathered by Savannah Alyson Jackson ' Forensic Debt Auditor, it has
come to their notice that BEFORE the Lender or Bank can make any claim of possession to the
property, by presumption or assumption through an alleged default thus applying the alleged security
instrument (Deed of Trust), they must establish the "Holder in Due Course" of the NOTE. If this
NOTE is secured by the Deed of Trust, then and only then, can the true identity of the ' Person
Entitled to Enforce tbe Security Instrument' according to UCC 3-302(e) can the Lender or alleged
holder of the note, make any such claims and proceed to foreclose on a property.
This correspondence will serve to memorialize Savannah Alyson Jackson' s dispute and Rigbt
to Cancel tbe Loan, aforementioned. This letter rogatory is also an attempt to establish confidential
commercial information of known violations from the Audit and to identif'y unknown violations and
crimes through this disclosure process using the following federal and state laws, including, but not
limited to, the Truth in Lending Act ("TTLA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"),
UCC 9-210, the Financial Accounting Standards Board codes and this Conditional Acceptance
Letter Rogatory.
2
Letter of Oualified Written Request
Please see attached Letter of Qualified Written Request that has to-date been left unrebutted,
by the Bank's Servicing Provider. (Addendum A)
This letter also serves as a NOTICE TO RESCIND the above-referenced alleged mortgage
loan as it is believed to be founded on Fraud by Misrepresentation in Ab Initio. Please be advised that
the Lender's original security interest in the above referenced property is now void, unless you, Mr.
Stumpf have information to the contrary of which Savannah A1yson Jackson does not believe exists.
All Rights Reserved
A copy of the Limited Power of Attorney (Addendum B) has been attached to this Letter for
your convenience so that all communication in the future can be processed through the undersigned,
Felicity Euhanks at the above address and phone number.
Felicity Eubanks (POA) seeks your immediate and personal intervention into this matter as
Savannah Alyson Jackson pledges this bond of peace to you in all communications. Savannah Alyson
Jackson accepts your bond of peace in all your communications. Savannah A1yson Jackson hereby
reserves all rights and abandons none, also rescinds all signatures and revokes all Powers of Attorney
for agents of Deutsche Bank, Decision One Mortgage, Wells Fargo, America's Servicing Corporation
and NDEx West LLC by presumptions and assumptions or otherwise.
Savannah Alyson Jackson trusts this communication with you will prevent further damages to
her, to your company and to any other parties who appear to claim an interest in her private life,
liberty, and property.
This notice and agreement is presented to you, in peace, in your private and personal capacities.
Conditional Acceptance
I . Savannah A1yson Jackson conditionally accept that Randy Middleton, Trustee Sale Officer
for NDEx West LLC did not commit peIjury by misleading, the Recorder of Inyo County,
California by filing the 'Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in February
2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC allegedly acting as an agent for the alleged
Beneficiary, could show that either NDEx West LLC are the "holders in due course" of the
NOTE.
Savannah A1yson Jackson believes when her NOTE was endorsed by the Lender ' without
recourse' all their obligations to the NOTE and Security Instrument (Deed of Trust) were fully
discharged under 3414 (e) of the California Commercial Code as a disclaimer of liability for
the drawer/maker to pay the Note and that the Lender has made material alterations to the
Promissory Note without the authorization or consent of Savannah A1yson Jackson, thereby
discharging the obligation of the Promissory Note under 3407 (I)(b) of the California
Commercial Code.
3
2. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Randy Middleton of NDEx West LLC
did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading her into believing that she still owes
a valid debt of $701 ,539. 12 upon proof of claim that the Lender gave her consideration of
money otherwise a loan prior to them signing the NOTE that claimed in paragraph I.
BORROWER' S PROMISE TO PAY "In returnfor a loan that J have received, I promise to
pay u.s. $ 304,500.00 (this amount is called "Principal',), plus interest, to the order of
Lender. " and that the Lender could show in their bookkeeping ledger accounts pursuant to
(GAAP) this amount having been deposited into Savannah Alyson Jackson' account or similar
transaction before the day Savannah Alyson Jackson signed the Note.
3. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that NDEx West LLC did not violate TILA
and RESPA laws, by not providing the Qualified Written Request information outlined in her
Notice of November 20th 2009 upon proof of claim that NDEx West LLC made a honest
attempt to resolve the complaint in writing.
4. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Randy Middleton, the Trustee Sale
Officer of NDEx West LLC, did not commit fraud by misrepresentation and misleading the
public and prospective buyers, in selling her home at a Trustee Sale upon proof of claim that
Randy Middleton had full consent from Savannah Alyson Jackson to do so, and that they
were not following a standard banking foreclosure procedure by disregarding Savannah Al yson
Jackson' s Notice of Rescission and dispute over the alleged debt.
5. Savannah A1yson Jackson conditionally accepts that the Lender disclosed all relevant loan
application information pursuant to Federal and State Laws including but not limited to TILA,
RESPA, REG Z and UCC 9-210 upon proof of claim that she was told their NOTE was to
be endorsed by the Lender, to fulfill the pre-sale arrangement of the pending Note with the
identified Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the buyers.
6. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that the NDEx West LLC a the alleged Trustee
and any other affiliates regarding this matter have not violated U.S.C. Title 12 Chapter 38A
"Single Family Mortgage Foreclosure Act", 3755 ' Prerequisites to Foreclosure' whereby,
only the Secretary of HUD as holder of a single family mortgage may foreclosure upon proof
of claim that NDEx West LLC of California and the alleged Trustee NDEx West LLC and
any other affiliates have received a letter from the Secretary of HUD allowing them permission
to foreclosure on Savannah A1yson Jackson ' s single famil y home.
7. Savannah Alyson Jackson conditionally accepts that Deutsche Bank or Decision One
Mortgage, as the alleged Lenders have not sold the Promissory Note as collateral for the
obligation or security of the Deed of Trust and has retained legal or equitable interest in the
collateral under 9318 (a) of the California Commercial Code upon proof of claim that anyone
can produce the original wet ink note unaltered and without endorsement.
4
Opportunity to Cure.
Savannah Alyson Jackson requests your response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this
Notice, with your rebuttal in the form of an affidavit challenging point by point, under Penalty of
Perjury, under your full Commercial Liability (as this letter will be used in a Court of law) addressed
to Savannah Alyson Jackson, c/o Felicity Eubanks, 29991 Canyon Hills Road #1709-150, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92532. Your silence will be taken as acceptance, acquiescence and your tacit
agreement with all seven (7) requests for proof of claim made in this notice, to perfect a security
interest in Savannah Alyson Jackson's name, in accordance with UCC 9-309 through 9-318.
If, after careful review of this letter and the related accounting, you fully agree that Savannah Alyson
Jackson has an authenticated security interest, and that their home has been paid for in full and there
has simply been an accounting error. Without reprisal litigation or dishonor, the remedy for settlement
and closure in this matter, would comprise of the following:
1. The account Mortgage Loan Agreement # 2260061037264 is set-off to show a zero balance on the
account.
2. All previous payments made into Savannah Alyson Jackson's loan escrow account be transferred
into an appointed Attorney's Trust Account.
3. A complete Re-conveyance of the Property located at 486 North 2nd Street, Bishop,
CALIFORNIA 93514, as required under the Deed of Trust.
4. All derogatory items related to this matter shall be removed from all credit reporting agency
records.
5. All recording made with the loyo County recorder in regard to the aforementioned Notices be
vacated from the Recorder of Inyo County, California.
Respectfully, without ill-will, aforethought, frivolity, malice, or vexation,
cc: Laura Kruger
Without prejudice
UCC 1-207; \-\ 03
Executive Mortgage Specialist
Office of the President
MAC X2302-02J
I Home Campus
Des Moines, 1A 50328-0001
5

EXHIBIT 13
NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE # 2
"U--
- '-'-"-.
requested by:
Sl:RVICELINK. A DIVISION OF CHICAGO
TITLE I7'! SURANCE COMPANY
When Recorded Mall To:
NO!!::r West, L. L.C.
15000 SUJ'Veyor Suite 500
AddiSOll , Teul 75001901]
(866) 795--1852
Trustee Sale No.: 20090134001964
INYO , CMtt Recorder
!'.My A R(FER Co Recorder Off ice
2010-0000159-00
Check frlMtM;r II lft7
l\onOay J A/j 18 . 09,311, 21
"Je il . ... 5 2 1 $ 1 . ,, : RC $6."
: SYS $Z .,,: SSl $l . M =
Ttl Pd $1 ue
D110 / Rl/1 - 2
Title Order No.. . i 00094 FHANAfPMI No.:
NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE
YOU AR.P:: IN Of.:FA. ULT UNDER A DEED Oil' TRUST, DATI:D IOf26/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE AcnON TO
PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBUC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATIOS OF Till:
NATURE 0.' lli'E PROCEEDING AGAINST VOU. YOU SHOULD COfl,'TACT A LAWVER.
ND[X WEST, LLC. as duly lppointed Trustee under and pursuant 10 Deed of Trust Rftorded on I l fJOIZ006 JDstrumenl No.
2006-0004'26 ur ufft\.;a! records in the office of the County Recorder ur INYO Coon?" Stale uf CALIFORNIA.
EX1i::CUTED BY: AlYSON J. OENK.,
WilL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO HIGHEST RUlTl ER FOR CASH. CA5HI ER'S CHECtue::ASH EQUIVALENT or ol her
form of paymdll authorIZed by 2924h{b}. (payable at time of sale in lawful money ohbc Uni ted Stales).
DATE OF SALE: 0211012010 TIME OF SALE: 12:00 PM
PLACE OF SALE: AT THE ENTRANCE TO INVO-MONO TITLE COMPAt'lY, 873 NORTH MAI N STREET, 61SHOP
CA.
STREET ADDKI!:SS and other common designation. ifany. oflhe real property described above is purported 10 be:
NORTH 2ND STREET, BISHOP, CALIFORNIA 93514
APH": 01-105-16
The Ill\dersi&ned Trustee disclaims any liability for any i .. w il cctuess of the street address ond oIher cnmmon designalioo, if IIny ,
shown herein. SaKI sate will be made, but without covenant or wamu;cy, expressed or imphed. regardIng tille, possession. Of
encumbrances, 10 pay the remaining sum of lhe noIE(S) secured by Solid Deed of Trust, with thereon. as provided in
said nate(I). advances. undEr the !ernul of sai d Deed of Trust, fees, charJes and expenxs of the Trusf and of the trusQ ClUled by
said Deed of Trust The rotal amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation JeCUl'ed by the property to be 50Id and reasonable
estl nuted costs, ellptnses and advances at the time of the initIal publication of the Notice of Sale is 5323,862.09. The beneficitlt)'
under said Deed of Trust heretofore eJl.cculed and del ivered to thE undenigned a wrinen Declaration of DefaUlt and Demand for Sale .
:md a written Notice of Dcfnult and Election to Scll. The undersigned caused SIIid NOIiec of Default and I:!lectKln 10 Sell 10 be rec.ordc:d
In the county where the: real propeny is located.
FOR TRUSTEE SALE INFORMATION PLEASE CALL:
ACENCY SALES" POSTING
3110 EL CAMI NO IU: AL, SUITE: 200
IRVINE. CA '26OZ
714-7J001727
_Jp!asap.coln
NDEl: West, L.L.C. aJ Authorized .".. _
NDEs Wat, L.L.C. MAY DE ACTI NG AS A DEBT
COLLECTOR A PTINC TO A
DEBT. ANY INFORMATION ODTAINE:O WIll.
BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
:::-:-::-:-:-:-::::-_ _ _ "' /:.-_ _ __ Dated: 1111312010
BY: Randy Middleton
h.:e l.r l

EXHIBIT 14
TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE # 2

Wesi, L.L.c.
Recording Requested By
ServiceLink
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500
When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement to:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
MARY A, ROPER Co Recorder Office
DOC- 2010-0000405-00
Check 147665
Wednesday, FEB 17, 2010 13:56:40
MIC $1.00:S21 $2.00:REC $13.00
SYS $3.00:SST $1.00:
Ttl Pd $20.00 Nbr-0000076701
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST .et al
cio AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY
7485 NEW HORIZON WAY BLDG. 3
FREDERICK, MD 21703 DMO/R1/1-J
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
TDUS20090134001964
Space above this line for Recorder's usc only
Trustee Sale No. : 20090134001964 Title Order No.: 100094
The undersigned grantor declares:
I) The Grantee herein WAS the foreclosing beneficiary
2) The amount of the unpaid debt together with cost was
3) The amount paid by the grantee at the trustee sale was
4j The documentary transrer tax is N/A
5) Said propelty is in the city or BISHOP
(,) APNff 01-105-06
$331,908.13
$199,750.00
THIS INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED ATTHE
REQUEST OF SERVICE LINK AS AN
ACCOMMODATION ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXAMINED AS TO ITS EXECUTION OR AS
TO ITS EFFECTS UPON TITLE.
NDEX West, L.L.c. ,as the duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust hereinafter described, does hereby grant and convey,
but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, to:
DIWTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET
SECURITIZA TlON CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2
(herein called Grantee), all or its right, title and interest in and to that certain property situated in the County of INYO, State of
Calirornia, described as follows:
THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BlSHOP, COUNTY
OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
FCUS_ Trustcl.:[)ccJUponS ..llc.rpl- (09/24/O8) / Vcr-IS
Page 1 of 2

Wesi, L.L.c.
Recording Requested By
ServiceLink
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500
When Recorded Mail to and Mail Tax Statement to:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
MARY A, ROPER Co Recorder Office
DOC- 2010-0000405-00
Check 147665
Wednesday, FEB 17, 2010 13:56:40
MIC $1.00:S21 $2.00:REC $13.00
SYS $3.00:SST $1.00:
Ttl Pd $20.00 Nbr-0000076701
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST .et al
cio AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY
7485 NEW HORIZON WAY BLDG. 3
FREDERICK, MD 21703 DMO/R1/1-J
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
TDUS20090134001964
Space above this line for Recorder's usc only
Trustee Sale No. : 20090134001964 Title Order No.: 100094
The undersigned grantor declares:
I) The Grantee herein WAS the foreclosing beneficiary
2) The amount of the unpaid debt together with cost was
3) The amount paid by the grantee at the trustee sale was
4j The documentary transrer tax is N/A
5) Said propelty is in the city or BISHOP
(,) APNff 01-105-06
$331,908.13
$199,750.00
THIS INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED ATTHE
REQUEST OF SERVICE LINK AS AN
ACCOMMODATION ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXAMINED AS TO ITS EXECUTION OR AS
TO ITS EFFECTS UPON TITLE.
NDEX West, L.L.c. ,as the duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust hereinafter described, does hereby grant and convey,
but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, to:
DIWTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HSI ASSET
SECURITIZA TlON CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2
(herein called Grantee), all or its right, title and interest in and to that certain property situated in the County of INYO, State of
Calirornia, described as follows:
THE WEST 49 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 7 IN BLOCK 4 OF THE HANBY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF BlSHOP, COUNTY
OF INYO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF SAID ADDITION FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK I, PAGE 30 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
FCUS_ Trustcl.:[)ccJUponS ..llc.rpl- (09/24/O8) / Vcr-IS
Page 1 of 2

Complete First Amended Complaint - Savannah Jackson - 4-18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete First Amended Complaint - Savannah Jackson - 4-18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

, ,..,. "' ""', _ ' CalilO<lli.

You might also like