Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tel: (808) 885-8124 Appellant IN THE ]NTERMEDIATE M, MARIANI, Jr. Plaintiff, VS. )
)
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF HAWAII
ANGELO
CIVIL NO'CAAP-11
OPENING BRIEF;
-0000761
) BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP ) A rExAS LrMrrED PARTNERSHTP SERVICED BY BANK OF AMERICA ) FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, 1 INC. TX JOHN DOES 1-10; ) JANE DOES 1-10; DOE ) r PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-l-0; DOE )
--,tS5HttoFoolBE^l,ltByEHIolfiom
oT. HAWA]I FRoM THE JUDGMENT IN EAVOR OF DEFENDANT BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP FKA
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS AND AGAINST ANGELO MARIANT FrLED
6/29/11
RE:64*5263 PUU NANEA ST, KAMUELA,HT 96743 tmk (3)54-023-072-0000 Appellee Defendants
A.
STRANCE
OPENING BRIEF
APPENDTCES \\A.B.C/'
INDEX
SECTION
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
i.
I.
II.
pg.8
pg. 15
pg.
18
pg. 19
V. CONCLUSION
ps.27
APPENDICES "A-B-C".
Attached
Attached
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
CASES
18
26
Caribbean v. Thrones,
107
18
20
15
2t
11
First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392,396, 772P.2d 1187, 1190 (1989) 20
460Mass.762 20ll
25
&8 (1983)
20
GECC Fin. CorB-y-Iaffarlau,79 Haw. 516, 521, 904P.2d 530, 535 (Haw. Ct. App.),
affd,
80
2T
l8
20
2I
21
2t
8, 84 1 P.?d
107
5 (1992)
t6
11
App. ,
11
State v.
21
2l
11
u.s. 1109.95
U. S.
V.
25
STAIUTES
PAGE
21
22
RULES Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15 Rule 56(c) HRCP (1981
PAGE 22
18
TREATISES
55
PAGE
23
18
19
Tel: (808) 885'8124 Appellant IN THE INTERMEDTATE M. MARIANI , Jr. Plaintiff, Vs. )
)
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF HAWAII
ANGELO
CIVIL NO.CAAP-1
OPENTNG BRTEF;
-0000761
) HOME LOANS SERVICTNG LP ) BAC A TEXAS LIMTTED PARTNERSHTP ) SERVICED BY BANK OF AMERICA ) FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, ) INC. TX JOHN DOES 1-10; ) JANE DOES 1-10; DOE ) PARTNERSHIPS 1_10; DOE 1 CORPORATIONS 1-10; DoE ) ENTITIES 1-10 AND DOE ) GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1*10, RE:64-5253 PUU NANEA ST, KAMUELA, HI 96'7 43 tmk (3 ) 6)
6/29/11
,rsrRn CIRCUIT
COURT
HONORABLE ELIZBETH
A.
STRANCE
OPENING BRIEF
I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
20A6
April 16, 2009 a Notice of Intent to AcceleraLe in regards to Appellant Mariani's loan (Declaratj-on of AngeIo Mariani
att.ached to "Mariani's Memorandum in oppositi-on" filed
5/13/11) (RoA at p. 450 #5) Within that notice it was stated that he (Mariani); "
you may have to acceleration and foreclosure."
...
had the right to bring a court action to assert. ... any defense
(Declaration
(ROA
at p. 451 #9)
at p. 450 #4)
Appellant Mariani read Judge Keith C. Long's decision in U.S. Bank vs. rbanez (08 MISC 384283 (KCL) I 08 MISC 386755
(KCL)October 14th., 20A9) staLing t.hat the party foreclosing on
a mortgage had to establish that it owned the mortgage. (Declaration of Angelo Mariani) (ROA at p. 451 #5)
Judge Long's decision was appealed and the decision on
appeal
is in
US
foreclosed upon that they should demand t.o see all the proper
documents,
(ROA
at p. 451 #6)
With the above knowledge in mind and not knowlng what filed hls Complaint on
November
Appellant Mariani
"proof" that Appellee BAC Home Loans had authority to foreclose. Appellant Mariani asked that t.he note and
mortgage be "be produced and any validly conveyed recorded
at p. 195, #8)
The CompJainf contained three counts for relief;
Count
Permanent Injunctive
Declaratory
Rellef,
In his prayer for relief Appellant Mariani asked that the Court adjudge; "A, That Defendant BACHLSLP has no lega1 standing or the proper 1ega1 or equitable interests in either the Note or Mortgage to instltute a foreclosure action.
"8, The attempt by
such sale is legally
BACHLSLP
Appellant Mariani sent the Conplaint by certified mail to Roth Crabtree & O1sen, the law firm representing Appellee
BAC Home Loan
in the non-judicial
foreclosure,
It
Appellant Mariani sent the CompJainf by certified mail to Appellee February 2, 2010,
Around January, 2010, Plaintiff was of the belief Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgagie Association) may have
BAC Home
on
held his mortgage and learned that mortgages and notes t.hat
had been sold to Fannie Mae could easily be checked on the
to the
foreclosure sale of March 5, 2010, Appellant Mariani checked the Fannie Mae web site for the subject premises and found out
Attached to
Plaintiff/
*** " ...it appears Fannie Mae owns a loan at this address. " (RoA at pp. 452-453 ) (Exhibit C) Appellee judicial
On
BAC Home Loan wenL
at p. 584) in in the
Hamakua
August 9th, 2010, (FNMAE) or (Eannie Mae) filed Court of the Third Circuit Civil NO, Circuit
5RC1 A- 1 -546H.
. . EEDERAL NATIONAL
.
I4ORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
al- . -
premises.
Tria1.
Demand
for Jury
Circuit
- 1 - 403K"
TAKE JUDfCIAL
Appellate courts mav take iudicial notice of proceedings having direct rglatio.n to the matter at issue. See Sakamoto v. Chang. 56 Haw.447. 539 P.2d 1197 (1975): ln re Ellis. 55 Haw.458.522 P.2d 460 (1974). cert. denied.419 U.S. 1109.95 S. Ct. 782.42 L. Ed.2d 805
{1975}: Sapo v. Wong. 3 Haw.
App.
claims ownership yet. has refused to respond to requesL for production of documents with reqard In it's memorandum in opposition to said to chain of title, motion FNMAE claims (Marianl's ) at.tempts to "challenge the underlined foreclosure at t.his late date are irrelevant", (pq. 3)
FNMAE
Civil- 10-1-405K is awaiting trial, On April 14, 2A11, Bank of America filed a Motion To Dismiss Mariani's Complaint filed November 15th, 20A9. (ROA at p . 346 ) Bank of America was not a party to the case. Bank of America argued therein that Appellant Mariani's claims: (a, "are moot because the property was foreclosed upon", (b, the Complaint. fails to state a claim against Bank of
Ameri-ca, and that
(
c,
any effort
Appeltee
in
(Memorandum
tsIemorandum
fn Opposition Of (l)Defendant Bank Of America [sicl,N.A.ts Motion To Dismiss .FiLed April 14th, 2011; (2)Defendant Bank of America, N.A. rs [sic] Iulotion For Judgrment On The
Pleadingrs Or fn The Al-ternative Summary Judgrment FiJed
lulay
7d, 20ll (RoA at p 442) Appellant Mariani at.t.ached as an Exhibit (ROA at p 453) (Exhibit C of Appendices) to his Declaration a copy of the Eannie Mae website referenced above indicating
Mae held his mortgage and loan.
Fannie
23
201 1 , The
Appellant Marlani's clai-ms were moot, (re: rranscript May 25, 2oll
Hearingr, Because of cfericaL error, the transcript of said hearing is being prepared by the Court and shoufd be fiJed and uploaded soon. Minutes of that particular hearingr may not exist)
June
29
201 1 .
or conclusions of }aw.
atpp. 89-90)
Appellant Mariani on July 1, 2011 filed a Motion To Anend ConpJaint To AJLow Quiet TitJe Action. Said Motion
was a
Non
-
hearing motion .
ROA at p.2
A Motion For Reconsjderation, To After, Amend, And/Or For Clarification of Judgrment was filed by Appellant Mariani within 10 days on July 7, 2011, (ROAatp.g6)
The Court never ruled on said motion.
Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(3) Rules of Appellate Procedure of the Court to dispose of the motion within days after the date of the mot j-on constitut.ed a deni-al the failure
.
90
on
1r.
STATEMENT OF PqTNTS OF ERROR RELIED UPON
POTNT ONE
Error Committed:
The Court Erred When ft Held That plaintiff/AppeIlee
Mariani's Complaint For Declaratory Relief Challenging Defendant/Appellee's Claim To Hold Plaintiff/Appellant Mariani's Mortgaqe and note
Was Moot
After
Defendant/Appe11ee's Alleged Non-Judicial Foreclosure During Litigation: (a. As alleged sale did not resolve any uncertainty regarding what entity held his mortgage and note (b. As BAC Home Loan showed no evidence it held the note
and mortgage and Appellee Mariani showed evidence Fannie
Mae
held his noLe and mortgage; (Exhibit C) Appendices and (c. As the controversy and uncertainty of BAC Home Loans having any right to foreclose continued to exist as does Appel}ant Mariani's inLerests and injury (d. FNMAE, the alleged purchaser at t.he foreclosure sale, filed an Ejectment. Action against Mari-ani regarding
Where
1, When the court announced its ruling at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment on May 23, 2A11. (re:
Transcript May 25, 20ll Hearing. Because of cJerical" error, the transcript of said hearing is beinq prepared by the Court and shouLd be filed and
upJoaded
it issued its order Granting summary Judgrment fn Favor Of Defendants on June 15, 2011 and when it f1led its Judgment on June 29, 2A11 (ROAatpp. 89-90) (Exhibit A of 2,
When
Appendices
it. failed to grant Appellee Mariani's lulotion For Reconsideration, To ALter, Anend And/Or For CLarification Of Order Granting Summary Judqmenf f11ed July 5,
When
7, 2011.
(ROA
atp. 96)
In the record, the alleged error was objected to or brought to the attention of the court 1. Memorandum fn OPPosition To (RaA at p. 442)
jatl ,'
ApriJ 14. 20// b) Defendant Bank of America's [sic] Motion For Judgrment on the Pl-eadingrs or rn The Alternative
Judgrment
summary
?011
("Memorandum and
atp' 442)
(re:
hearing is Transcript May 23, 20ll Hearingt. BecdDse of ciericai error, the transcript of said Mjnutes of thet particDlar being prepared by the court ancl shauJd be filed and uP.l.oaded saon. hearinq naY not exist)
and
d) zn Appellee Mariani's Motion for Reconsideration, AJter, Anend And/Or For Cl-arification
Summary Judgnenf
To
of Order Grantingr
filed
POINT
TWO
Error CommitLed:
The Court Erred When it
Mariani to amend his Complaint and to al1ow a quiet title action after the Court ruled Appellee's claims were moot.
Where in thg Record Alleqed Error Occurred
(ROA
at p.
442)
2. When the Court did not rule on Appellee Mariani's Motion To Anend ConpJaint To Al-Jow A Quiet Title
Action, filed July 1, 2011. {ROA at p. 2) Where in the Record the Al-l-eqed Error Was Obiected t.o or Brouqht to the Attention of the Court. (a. Appellee Mariani's Memorandum fn Opposition filed May 15, 2A11 (RAA at p, 442) (b, Motion To Anend CompJaint To Al-Low Quiet TitJe Action filed July 1, 2A11 {AOe at p. 2)
m.
STANDARD OF REVIEW An appellate court reviews an award of summary judgment de Novo under the same standard
applied by the circuit court. Fujimoto
v Au,
Q}AD
(citing Amfac. Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co. ,74Hawu'i 85, 104, 839 P.2d 10,22,
reconsiderationdenied, T4Hawar'i650,843P.zd144(1992)).Thiscourtarticulatedthe
standard as follows: and
Hawaii community Federal Credit Union V. Kea, 94 Haw. 213,22I, 1 I P. 3d 1 ; (Haw) 2000);
Caribbean v. Thrones, 107 Haw.48, 109 P.3d. 689 (Haw. 2005)
rv.
ARGUMENT A,
a). ver
me
Burden
r for (I.E.
NOT BAC was
t.he
hen shi
could
possiblv sell to
FNMNE
that which
According to Fannie Mae (who claims ownership of Not.e and Mortgaqe 2 months PRIOR to the alleqed sale on 1/6/10,
( (please
did
noL
possess eit.her t.he note or the Mortgage on March 5th, 2010, the
dat.e of the alleged non-judicial
foreclosure sale.
This calls int.o question "who owns what, where and when" and raises a Dispute of a Material Fact in the case.
cloud.
(199?:
66A
Mortgage may be
enforced only by and in behalf of a person who is entitled to enforce the obligation the
mortgage secures."
Car?entervs. Logan 83 U.S.271" 274 (1872) "The Note and Mortgage are
inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while the assignment of the latter alone is a nullity."
of the right to atrial on disputed factual issues, summary judgment must be "cautiously
invoked." Miller v. M.anuel, 9 Haw. App. 56' 65-66, 828 P.2d 286,292 (1991), cert'
deniedo 72Eaw.618,841 P.2d 1075 (1992). Summary judgment is proper if the record indicates "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Rule 56(c) HRCP (1981); First Insurance Co. v. State, 66 Haw. 4L3, 665 P.zd
64S (1983); Hulsman v. Hemmeter Devglopment Corp., 65 Haw. 58,647 P.2d 713 (1982).
"A fact is material if proof of thatfact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one
of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties."
Hulsman, 65 Haw. at 61,647 P.zd, at 716 (citations omitted). The burden is on the party
moving for summary judgment to show the absence of any genuine issue as to all material
facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitles the moving party to
J---e
iudement as a maffer of law. FirSt Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392,396,772P.2d 1187. 1190 (19S9); 6 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice P 56.15[3] at56-249 - 56-250 (2d
ed. 1995). The moving party's burden of proof is a stringent one, since the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts alleged in the relevant materials considered by the court in deciding the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving palty,
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fermahin, T3 Haw. 552, 555,836 P.2d 1074, lA76
resolved in favor of the non-moving party." GECC Fin. Corp. v. Jaffarian,79 Haw. 516,
521,904 P.2d 530, 535 (Haw. Ct. App.), affd,8O Haw. 118, 905 P.zd624 (1995) (citations
omitted).
a
"[S]ummary judgment should not be granted unless the entire record shows
right to judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and establishes
affirmatively that the adverse party cannot prevail under any circumstances." State v.
Zimring, 5 2 Haw.
47
2, 47 5, 47 9 P.zd 202,
20
970).
The moving party has the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and that
it is therefore entitled
to judgment as a matter
of
law
when the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production, that the burden shift[s] to the
non-moving party to respond to the motion for summary judgment arrd demonstrate specific [material] facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy
of
trial." Mednick
v. Davey, 87 Haw. 450, 457,959 P.2d 439, 445 (Haw. App. Ct. 1998).
ARGU}4ENT B
es over leoaI
riohts
HRS Section 632-6. Provisions, remedial. This chapter is declared to be remedial. Its purpose is to afford relief from the
uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon controversies over legal rightso without requiring one of the parties interested
so
It
is to be Iiberally
interpreted and admiristered, with a view to making the courts more serviceable to
the people.
This law (HRS Section 632-6) was entirely overlooked and made Moot by the
courts ruling and granting of Summary Judgment:
(a. As the alleged sale did not resolve any uncertainty regarding what entity held his
Appellee Mariani showed evidence Fannie Mae held his note and mortgage; and
(c. As the controversy and uncertainty of BAC Home Loans having any right to
foreclose continued to exist as does Appellant Mariani's interests and injury. (d. FNMAE the alleged purchaser at the foreclosure sale filed an EjectmentAction
HRS Secti on 632-1. Jurisdictionl controversies subject to. In cases of actual controversy, courts of record, within the scope of their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to make binding adjudications of right, whether or not
consequential relief is, or at the time could be, claimed, and no action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that ajudgment or order merely declaratory of right is prayed for; provided that declaratory relief may not be obtained in any district court, or in
any controversy with respect to taxes, or in any case where a divorce or annulment of marriage
is
of
deeds,
wills,
other
may be so determined, and this enumeration does not exclude other instances of actual
antagonistic assertion and denial of right.
satisfied that
antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and
inevitable litigation, or where in any such case the court is satisfled lhat a party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege in which the party has a concrete interest and that
will
giving rise to the proceeding. Where, however, a statute provides a special form of remedy
for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed; but the mere fact that an actual or threatened controversy is susceptible of relief through a general common law
remedy, a remedy equitable in nature, or an extraordinary legal remedy, whether such
a party from
the
privilege of obtaining a declaratory judgment in any case where the other essentials to such relief are present.
This chapter is declared to be remedial. Its purpose is to afford relief from the
uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon controversies over legal rights, without requiring
one of the parties interested so to invade the rights asserted by the other as to entitle the
administered, with a view to making the courts more serviceable to the people.
History.
"In United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Yogi, 101 Hawai'i
46,62 p.3d 189 (2002),this court, in deciding that the plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants'
claim for declaratory relief was not moot because a substantial controversy remained in the
case, stated:
In the words of HRS $ 632-1, the dispositive question is whether the court is satisfied also that adeclaratory judgment will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving
rise to the proceeding. This is a question of law. In determining whether parties still retain
sufficient interests and injury as to justify the award of declaratory reiief, the question is
whether the facts alleged, under all circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and
reality to warrant a declaratory judgment. Id. at 57,62 P.3d at 198 (internal brackets,
quotation markso and citations omitted) (emphasis added)." County of Kauai v. Baptiste,
115
"When a mortgagee has a right to foreclose, the foreclosure sale passes legal title,
even though the power of sale may have been improperly executed and the sale
consequently voidable in equity. If, however, the foreclosure of a deed of trust is wrongful
because no right to sell exists, the foreclosure sale is
It."
55
CASES regardins the validity of foreclosures when the foreclosing entity does not
In a January 2011 case, U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, the high court handed back two other
properties to former owners. U.S. BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION. vAntonio
Q01l)
case we must determine whether a
SPINA,
J "In this
try title action under G. L. c. 240, $$ 1-5, where he is in physical possession of real
property but his chain of title rests on a foreclosure sale conducted by someone other than
"the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns." G. L. c. 183, $ 21 (statutory power of sale)." Gg1.)
1.
A foreclosure conducted by
a non-mortgagee
is wholly void and passes no title to a subsequent transferee (purchasers foreclosures will be especially pleased to learn of this)
of
deed passes no
title even to
a supposed "bona
fide
The Grantee of an invalid (wholly void) foreclosure deed does not have record title,
nor does any person claiming uuder a wholly void deed, and the decision of the lower land court properly dismissed Bevilacqua's petition.
4.
1.
In hotding that Bevilacqua could not make "something from nothing" (bring an
action or even have standing to bring an action, when he had a title worth nothing) the lower land court applied and upheld long-standing principles of conveyance.
in favor of U.S. Bank. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and
remand for flyther proceedings. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings"
JJ.,
ARGUMENT C
D.
written consent of the advese party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so
requires. "
The order granting motion for summary judgment may result in "issue preclusion" regarding the holder of the mortgage if Mariani cannot litigate a quiet title case...
V.
CONCLUSION
Mariani asks that the order granting summary judgment be reversed and t.his case be remanded to the circuit further hearing, court for
3/ 14/ 12
Mariani Jr.
'AppelIant
v. Anqelo Michael
Appendices
Efibit
A....Order
Exhibit B.... Mortgage (first two pages) Exhibit C.... Page from Fannie Mae's website
ExhibitA.
ffif,BffiY
STARN . O'TOOLE o MARCUS & FISHER A Law Corporation
5083-0 SHARON V. LOVEJOY 8805.0 ANDREW J. LAUTENBACH 9271-A BRANDI J. BI.IEHN 733 Bishop Street, Suite 1900 Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 537-61 00
f,-tLID
?$il
JUH
?9
l;
AH
il: 38
0F
l
C.$AliDAL ,i.i.
CIRCLIii
c:j.i
CLERT(
,-
THE
i: "
l.r
'',lUlT i:,
Attorneys for Defendants Bank of Americ4N.A. (erroneously sued as "Bank of America fl<a Country"vgide I{ome Loans, lnc', TX") and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
TN
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership Serviced by BANK OF AMERICA fka COTINTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, [NC., TX, JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE
JUDGMENT
i-to;
t \ )
HEARING:
Date:
ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN, ) 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 305, Honoluiu, HI i 96813 (808) 532-00e0 - Fax (808) s24-a0ez t
Defendants, ) ) ) ) )
'IMK
13) 6-4-023-072-AAAA
Aftorneys;
Mav 24.2011
I 1:00 a.m. The fr.rnorable Elizabeth A. Strance
Time:
Judge:
ffii'rI'ffi
545167-2
Tfnfisl
XI 'ois f,
iilb,,,16io
corra.,
Clerk,IhirdCirm
f_i,)/ uir{rt
t .-
n'
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Order Granting Summa: Judgment in Favor of Defendarufs, entered on
and June 15,2011, judgment is entered in favor of Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
o'Bank
Inc., TX,,), and against Plaintiff Angelo M. Mariani, Jr. on all claims asserted against Defendants in this action.
All
issues and all claims as to Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and Defendant
Bank of America, N.A. (erroneously sued as "Bank of America fka Countrywide Home Loans, judgment pursuant to Inc., TX,,) have been resolved. This Judgment shall be entered as a final
Rule 58 of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure.
1fidlL ,F I
dav
of
2011
Louo,S"Giog;LP'';ciultNo.09-01-488K,ThirdCircuitCour!Stateof Hawai'i;ruDGMENT
Exhibit B.
MICHELI,E
A63010091
IEscro1.r/Closing
#]
00012697150303005 tDoc ID *l
MORTGAGE 10 00157-00065841
MIN
9-s
DEFINITIONS
and other woids are defined in Sections Words used in multiple sections of this document are defined below
INSTRUMENT |VITH MEHS HAVrrAll-single Family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac uNlFoRM Pags 1 oi 15
Q-oa1xl) CONVA/A
Fafin3a12 1lA1
ffiilfi$lilm[ffiilmilililffi
*23991'
"t""f r''6"'e
i--i-t
oso00o01006A
ffi ffi
ffiffiilffi *
DoC
Section 16.
ID #:
00012697150303006
3, 11, 13, 18, 20 and 21. Certain rules regarding the usage of words used in this document are also provided in
24,
2006
, rogether
JR,
SINGLE
Borrower is the rnortgagor under this Securiry Instrument. (C) "MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrumenl MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and ha.s an address and telephone number of P,O, Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. l,ender is a CoRPORATIoN organized and existing under the laws of NEw YORK
Lender's address is
[D) "Lender" is
4500 Park Granada MSN# SVB-314, Calabasas, CA 91302-1,61'3 (E) "Note" means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated MARCH 24,
2006
The
Note states that Borrower owes Lpnder FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND ANd OO/1OO
plus interest. Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Paymenls and to pay the debt in full not later than APRIL 01, 2035 {F) "Property" means the properfy that is described below under the heading "Transfer of Rights in the
Dollars(U.S.$
420,000.00
Properfy."
(G) "Loan" means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges
due under the Note, and all sums due under this Securiry Instrumenl plus interest. ([f) "Riders" means all Riders to this Security Instrument that are executed by Borrower. The following Riders are to be executed by Borrower [check bax as applicable]:
l--l
E grilr", niO* F
vn
Rio"r
[--] I--l
l-l
Rider
giweetly Payment
Rider
! E f l
,'Applicable Law" means all controlling applicable federal, state and local stafutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (that have the effect of law) as well as all applicable final,
(I)
Dues, Fees, and Assessments" means all dues, fees, assessrnents and other Borrower or the Properry by a condominiurn a.ssociation, homeowners association charges that are imposed on or similar organization. (K) "Electronic Funds Transfer" means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction onginated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument,
(D "C-ommunity Association
a"s
@.'ol1xt)
/ooos)
01
cHL (08/05)
Page 2 al 15
Exhibit C.
Lookup{ool
Page
of1
,*i, iffi&T
to quickly determine if Fannie Mae owns The Fannie Mae Loan Lookup enables mortgage borroweE code' loan by providing a street address, unit, city, state, and ZIP their
Slreet Address Unit
Zip Code'
KAMUELA
-i
96743
I-
* I confim that I am the owner ol lhis property, or have the consent of the owner
&ia*
Type the two words:
. Required Fields
@fr
liisir:it i:i;ti;;ti
owns a loan at this address Based on the property information entered, it appears Fannie Mae quatify for a Making Home Afiofdable A "Match Found" status doeB nol guarantee ot imply that you will rerinance or modifieation. servicer (the organizalion to lf you'fe inlerested in a refinance, please mntact your mottgage lender or
at : '
"
irSii; :,j::il;:l:l
TheFannieMaeLoanLookupisprovidedasaconvenienceforboffovJers.FannieMaemakesno search that represstation, warmnty, or guafantee regarding the accuracy or completeness ot the results. A Home Afisdabla in a "Match Foufld" status dcs not guarantee tr imply that yN will qualify for a Making
results You refinance or modification. lnfomation ihat does not malch our records exactly may retum inaccurate results. contact your mortgage lender to verify these results. should For informalion about the use of our site and our privacy policy, llr'r.:
!'r''i l
;ilir_tl
!!,.tr
I
u6l2a1a