IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS A. WEBSTER, et al, Defendant,

Case No: 05-2009-CA-074735

DEFENDANT THOMAS WEBSTERS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant THOMAS WEBSTER (Defendant) by and through the undersigned counsel, files this, his Answer and Affirmative Defenses.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1.

Paragraph 1 is admitted only insofar as the 18th Judicial Circuit In and For Brevard County, Florida has jurisdiction over mortgage foreclosure actions for real property located within Brevard County, Florida and denied as to the Courts subject matter jurisdiction over this mortgage based upon the lack of standing of the Plaintiff to bring this suit. Strict proof thereof is demanded.

2.

Paragraph 2 is denied. Plaintiff has consistently and deliberately violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) with numerous abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices.

3.

Paragraph 3 is admitted only insofar as a promissory Note and Mortgage were executed on April 28, 2006. Defendant denies that said Promissory Note and Mortgage were delivered

to the Payee named thereon. The remaining parts of paragraph 3 are denied for lack of knowledge.

4.

Paragraph 4 is denied. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to establish that it is in possession of or entitled to enforce any Note or Mortgage pertaining to the subject property.

5.

Paragraph 5 is denied. Defendant Thomas Webster is the sole owner of the subject property.

6.

Paragraph 6 is denied. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to establish that the loan is in default or that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage. Additionally, Plaintiff instructed Defendant to cease making monthly mortgage payments in order to receive assistance from the Plaintiff, who was merely the loan servicer and neither funded nor purchased any interest in the subject Note and Mortgage.

7.

Paragraph 7 is denied. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to establish that the loan is in default or that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage.

8.

Paragraph 8 is denied. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to establish that the loan is in default or that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage. Plaintiffs title search is inadequate and unreliable as there are numerous parties that have not been served legal notice pertaining to the instant case.

9.

Paragraph 9 is denied. Plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant with the prerequisite written notice of breach and acceleration as required by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Note and paragraphs 15, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Mortgage as well as the non-joinder of necessary parties to the instant case.

10.

Paragraph 10 is admitted insofar as Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Florida Default Law Group, PL n/k/a Ronald R Wolfe & Associates P L, and denied as to Plaintiffs obligation to pay reasonable legal fees. The instant case is not being heard on appeal.

11.

Paragraph 11 is denied. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to establish that the loan is in default or that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage.

12.

Paragraph 12 is denied for lack of knowledge. Plaintiff has failed to serve legal notice to all necessary parties pertaining to the instant case.

13.

Paragraph 13 is admitted. Paragraph 14 is admitted.

14.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

15.

Note: The term Plaintiff refers to Plaintiff, its principal(s), agents, predecessors, successors and/or assigns, servicers, sub-servicers, co-owners, trust beneficiaries, certificate holders, or any others associated with this Note and Mortgage. The subject promissory note is a NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, thus the Defendants defenses available against the original lender apply equally to the Plaintiff.

16.

Defendant was instructed by lender not to sign the Promissory Note and was told that his credit was not sufficient enough to warrant signing said Note. Defendant believes that his credit was neither examined nor scrutinized in making the final determination for loan approval. Defendants credit score was higher than his spouses (now ex-spouse) and his income was sound at the time of loan application. Defendants spouse (now ex-spouse) had her debts listed on the loan application yet her income was listed as zero. This was

only discovered via Plaintiffs response to Defendants Qualified Written Request (QWR) that was sent subsequent to loan closing. Defendant had specifically requested to sign the Note due to the fact that Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were relocating from Palm Beach County to Brevard County where Defendant was assigned to work for his company. His ex-spouse was not going to be working. All mortgage payments were being made by the Defendant subsequent to closing and the parties involved in loan prequalification, funding and closing were aware of this fact.
17.

Defendant encountered many problems when attempting to communicate with the Plaintiff. Defendant was instructed to obtain and submit authorization from his spouse (now exspouse) in order to speak with representatives of the loan servicer to discuss particulars about the loan. Defendant did obtain and submit to Plaintiff authorization allowing him to speak to Plaintiff regarding the loan on or about February of 2008. Yet over the course of the last several years Defendant has been repeatedly peppered with letters and notes stuck in his door instructing him to contact Plaintiff in order to attempt to resolve the issues pertaining to the loan. Astonishingly, each and every time Defendant responds to the letters and notes, Defendant is instructed to again retrieve authorization from his ex-spouse in order to speak with them regarding loan resolution options. Defendant had funds available to conduct an immediate loan resolution, and tendered same to Plaintiff, but such payment was refused and rejected by Plaintiff who claimed to Defendant that the refusal and rejection was on instructions of the representative at the executive resolution group at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm. Defendant had previously made contact with a Sr. VP at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm and was sent by referral to their executive resolution group. Plaintiff knows that the authorization was sent in, yet continually harasses Defendant with nonsensical requests and demands to obtain information it already has on file.

18.

MFC Mortgage was never a lender. They were acting as loan broker as evidenced by the line item on the HUD statement that shows commission being paid to Freemont Loans and Investments. Additionally, at no point did MFC Mortgage disclose that Mortgage
4

Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) would be listed on the Mortgage and failed to disclose the $3.95 registration fee on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) as required by the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA.)

19.

The alleged Lender on the Mortgage induced (bribed) Defendants spouse (now exspouse) with a $7,000 credit that was not listed on the HUD statement. The sales contract price and the HUD closing statement are off by the same $7,000. Defendant closed on the subject mortgage loan on a Friday afternoon with Adams/ Adnoram Title. The place was packed and many couples and families were crammed into a tiny waiting room where dozens of others were also waiting to close. Defendants were called into the back area to sign paperwork about halfway through the pack. Throughout the process of authorizing closing documents the signing agent kept coming back in with new copies of documents to sign that we had already signed. Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were told on the first occasion that there was a mistake, could you please re-sign this. The second time it was something like I am sorry, could you please sign this document instead of the other. The third time it happened the agent came back into the room and said we made another mistake, please sign this one again. Each time she departed with a freshly inked document. Defendant believes that there were multiple copies of the Note signed that day at closing - an original blank note, an endorsed note, and a voided note.

20.

21.

Regarding the settlement agent, Adams Title was disclosed as being the title agent on all Good Faith Estimates prior to closing, yet at time of closing several other title companies are listed on the HUD statement. These companies were not previously disclosed to the Defendant. The lender omitted this information prior to settlement and autonomously added parties just prior to closing. MERS, Freemont Loans and Investments, Adnoram Title, et al. Defendant was told by the that the seller (home builder) that it was going to streamline the finance and closing process, save him time and money and make the overall

process more convenient. Defendant believes this process may have been subverted to accommodate numerous, varied, un-disclosed interests as evidenced by the aforementioned omission of the closing agent. The closing agent neither disclosed nor revealed the true lender or source of funds used at time of closing.
22.

Plaintiff has failed to provide proof of service for the following entities: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS,) MERS Inc., MERS Corp., MERS as nominee for MFC Mortgage, EMC Mortgage, First Union c/o CT Corp. System, Cimmaron Mortgage dba Mortgage Warehouse, Bank of New York, LaSalle Bank, SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Mortgage, SunTrust Securities, SunTrust Real Estate Trust LLC, SunTrust Mortgage Securitization LLC, SunTrust Investment Services Inc., SunTrust Alternative Loan Trust 2006-IF Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-1F, Bear Stearns, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, et seq., Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac Securities, JPMorgan, JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., JPMorgan Securities, JPMorgan Chase Securities, Chase Mortgage Finance Corp., Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006 S-1, et seq., Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006 S-2, et seq., Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2006 S-1, et seq., Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2006-S2, et seq., Certificate holders of various securities including John Doe and Jane Doe numbers 1 through 1,000.

23.

Plaintiff filed their initial civil suit on the subject mortgage loan with with a lost note count under case #05-2008-CA-046054. There was an Assignment of Mortgage filed subsequent to the filing of said initial civil suit. The Assignment of Mortgage filed after the filing of the initial lawsuit reinforces Plaintiffs lack of standing.

24.

The Assignment of Mortgage filed in Book 5885 Page 976, Brevard County records purports to assign the subject Mortgage to Chase Home Finance LLC. Said assignment fails to convey any interest in the subject Mortgage. Since the Note allegedly traveled to

Suntrust, MERS as nominee for MFC Mortgage had absolutely no bona-fide right in and to the subject Mortgage and therefore could not lawfully convey any interest in and to the same. There is no address listed for MERS as nominee for MFC Mortgage as they do not exist and there is no MERS corporate seal on the Assignment of Mortgage. The persons that authorized said Assignment are Christina Trowbridge and Stacy Spohn. Their LinkedIn online profiles state that they are Operations Unit Managers at Chase Home Finance in Columbus Ohio and NOT Vice Presidents of MERS as nominee for MFC Mortgage. Plaintiff clearly used its own employees (who are neither officers nor directors) to attempt to assign a Mortgage to themselves. At no time did Plaintiff have an interest in and to the subject Note or Mortgage. Florida statute 817.54 states; Any person who, with intent to defraud, obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt from any person or obtains the signature of any person to any mortgage, mortgage note or promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt by color or aid of fraudulent or false representations shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.
25.

Plaintiffs response to Defendants Qualified Written Request (QWR) states that Bank of New York and LaSalle Bank are investors of the mortgage loan.

26.

Plaintiffs response to Defendants Request for Interrogatories states that FHLMC has an interest in the mortgage loan but does not accurately state the type or nature or the interest (if any.)

27.

The docket service listings in the instant case as evidenced by e-Facts, the system used to store and manage civil case information in the 18th Circuit in and for Brevard County, Florida shows that there are numerous parties that have not been served proper legal notice regarding the instant case; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., EMC Mortgage Corporation, First Union National Bank c/o CT Corp., and Cimmaron Mortgage dba Mortgage Warehouse. Information on e-Facts has recently been modified. There are/were parties that were once listed on party information and participant information that are no longer listed. Particularly, Cimmaron Mortgage dba Mortgage Warehouse. Defendant was able to capture this information prior to its removal from e-Facts.
7

28.

Plaintiff claims to have lost a Note bearing three endorsements in the initial case, Brevard County Circuit Civil case #05-2008-CA-046054. Plaintiff claims no lost Note in the instant case. In the present case, Plaintiff presents to the court a copy of a Note bearing only two endorsements. If Plaintiff first came to possess an alleged copy of a Note with three endorsements there would be no logical explanation for them to be in possession of an Original Note bearing just two endorsements. It is likely that multiple copies of the Note were scanned and digitized and/or Plaintiff had stamped or copied these Notes themselves. The Note in Plaintiffs possess is NOT a negotiable instrument and is merely a fake, falsified, forged and fabricated instrument that has been rendered non-negotiable.

29.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is the Administrator of National Banks. The OCCs 1997 Asset Securitization Handbook states that borrowers are an important factor regarding the securitization of mortgages and are an integral part of the mortgage securitization process.

30.

The OCCs 2008 quarterly report shows the leverage at which Plaintiff has structured their credit default/derivatives options. Plaintiff has leveraged/optioned/hypothecated contracts and other assets at a ratio of ninety to one. Plaintiff has placed bets on Defendants home that have paid off at a rate of approximately ninety to one or has been compensated or reimbursed at a rate that far exceeds the amount required as listed on the Federal Truth In Lending Statement (TIL) that was presented at closing. Defendants home is worth ninety times more to the Plaintiff than it is to the Defendant. Their motive is not to accept a working solution or even accept the payoff that was offered to them by the Defendant. Rather, their incentive is to attempt to strip the Defendant of his right, title and interest in and to the subject property at all costs.

31.

Defendant had attempted to work out a solution to pay off the loan in full and was told by Plaintiffs representative that if he wanted to attempt to work out a solution he needed to cease making payments for a period of ninety days. After the ninety days had elapsed Defendant contacted the Plaintiff and was told that now the investor of the loan would
8

not consider accepting payment. This in spite of the fact that a relative was willing to cash in stocks and retirement funds to pay off the loan in its entirety. Defendant asked who is the investor and was told Freddie Mac. Defendant called Freddie Mac and was directed to call his loan servicer. There was a nonsensical pattern of false information, distortion and deception that prevented Defendant from being able to resolve the issues pertaining to his mortgage payments. Defendant was astonished to hear that the Plaintiff would not accept any payment, including full payment and was maddened by the way that Plaintiff and the executive resolution department intentionally misdirected Defendant when he made attempts to pay.
32.

SEC/Edgar is the lookup tool for Securities Issuances online at the Securities and Exchange Commission. There are several securities issuances that emanated from SunTrust, Bear Stearns, EMC Mortgage, JP Morgan and Freddie Mac which likely lead to the issuance of no less than three sources of income and produced no less than three sets of derivatives bets and/or credit default swaps. Defendants threshold for full payment as listed on the Truth In Lending payoff statements has been exceeded. The total remuneration earned by Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest, co-owners, trust beneficiaries, certificate holders and others far exceeds the specified amount listed as final payoff on the Federal Truth In Lending statement (TIL) statement. Any excess thereof belongs to the Defendant. Defendant hereby requests to view the amounts earned by the parties that previously owned, presently owned or allegedly owned interests in and to the subject Note and Mortgage.

33.

In 2005, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) produced the Mortgage Fraud Assessment. In this report FDLE suggests that a basic review of courthouse documents to ensure proper filings is a productive method to identify and stop some frauds, such as taking on multiple investors for the same property.

34.

Defendant has used an extraordinary amount of due-diligence trying to identify and determine the entities involved with his mortgage. He has regularly attempted to

communicate with employees and executives of MFC Mortgage, Adams Title, Adnoram Title, SunTrust Mortgage, SunTrust Securities, Chase Home Finance, JP Morgan Chase and Freddie Mac with no success. Defendant has yet to receive any meaningful response pertaining to the sales, transfers, chain of ownership, claim of ownership, trust agreements, income, profits and derivatives/credit default swap income obtained or received by the Plaintiff, its predecessors, successors, and/or assigns by way of pretending to own an interest(s) in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. At no time did Plaintiff have any bona-fide interest in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. Plaintiff was merely the loan servicer.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Notice of Breach (Default)

35.

The Plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant with either notice of breach or adequate notice of breach as required by paragraph 7 and 8 of the Note and paragraphs 15, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Mortgage and as also required by 24 C.F.R. 3500.21 and 24 CFR 203.604.

36.

The Note requires that notice must be given to the borrowers by first class mail or by delivery to the property address. (Complaint, Note, para. 8) The Mortgage requires written notice must be given to the borrowers in writing by first class mail or delivered to the property address. (Complaint, Mortgage, para. 15) Paragraph 19 of the mortgage explains that notice provides the borrower with an opportunity to cure. (Complaint, Mortgage, para. 19) Plaintiff did not plead that it provided the Defendant with notice of breach, nor did it attach notice of breach to its complaint. The mortgage provides a covenant and a condition that no suit may be commenced until after the notice of breach is given. Paragraph 20 of the mortgage provides in relevant part: Neither the Borrower nor Lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action (as either an individual litigant or the member of a class) that arises from the other partys actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security
10

Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action.
37.

The issue of a lack of a notice of default is a material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1646 (Fla. 5th DCA July 29, 2011) A default notice from the "lender" is a condition precedent prior to filing a complaint. Amedas v. Brown, 505 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Dykes v Trustbank Savings. F.S,B., 567 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990); Gomez v. American Savings and Loan Ass`n, 515 So.2d 301 (Fla, 4th DCA 1987): Rashid v. Newberry Federal Savings and Loan Association, 502 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); Rashid v. Newberry Federal Savings and Loan Association, 526 So.2d 772 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988).

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Notice of Acceleration

38.

The Note requires that notice must be given to the borrowers by first class mail or by delivery to the property address. (Complaint, Note, para. 8) The Mortgage requires written notice must be given to the borrowers in writing by first class mail or delivered to the property address. (Complaint, Mortgage, para. 15) Paragraph 19 of the mortgage explains that notice provides the borrower with an opportunity to cure. (Complaint, Mortgage, para. 19) Plaintiff did not plead that it provided the Defendant with notice of acceleration, nor did it attach notice of acceleration to its complaint.

39.

The plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant with either notice of acceleration or adequate notice of acceleration as required by paragraph 8 of the Note and paragraphs 15, 18 19, 20 and 22 of the Mortgage. Specifically, paragraph 18 of the mortgage provides in relevant part: The notice [of acceleration]shall provide a period of not less than
11

30 days from the date the notice [of breach] is given in accordance with Section 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument. And, paragraph 22 of the mortgage provides in relevant part: Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrowers breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument (but not prior to acceleration under Section 18 unless Applicable Law provides otherwise). The notice shall specify (a) the default, (b) the action required to cure the default, (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured, and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument, foreclosure by judicial proceeding and sale of the property. The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding the nonexistence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and foreclosure.
40.

Notice of acceleration is a condition precedent that must be given pursuant to the terms of the contract. Konsulian v. Busey Bank, 61 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA, 2011)

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Notice of Change of Loan Servicer or Assignment of Mortgage
41.

The loan servicer had changed and neither Plaintiff nor its servicers notified the Defendant of this fact. Also, Plaintiff did not plead that it had given notice of a change of the loan servicer nor did it did it attach notice of a change of the loan servicer to its Complaint and the Defendant did not receive any notice from Plaintiff of a change of the loan servicer.1

3 of the Note provided that borrowers were to make payments to MFC MORTGAGE, INC OF FLORIDA at 851 TRAFALGAR COURT THIRD FLOOR, MAITLAND, FL 32751. Paragraph 15 of the Mortgage provides: Any notice to Lender shall be given
by delivering it or by mailing it by First class mail to Lenders address stated herein unless Lender has designated another address by notice to Borrower. Any notice in connection with this Security Instrument shall not be deemed to have been given to Lender until actually received by Lender. If any notice required by this Security Instrument is also required under Applicable Law, the Applicable Law requirement will satisfy the corresponding requirement under this Security Instrument. 12

Paragraph

42.

The Lender on the Note was MFC MORTGAGE, INC OF FLORIDA. The Note attached to the Complaint is first indorsed VOID by MFC MORTGAGE, INC OF FL and subsequently endorsed without recourse to Suntrust Mortgage Inc. Yet the assignment of Mortgage purports to have been granted to Plaintiff by MERS as nominee MFC Mortgage Inc. Plaintiff claims to have now found this previously lost Note and would like the court to believe it has received ownership from lender via Assignment of Mortgage from MERS as nominee for MFC Mortgage when in fact MERS as nominee for MFC had no rights to lawfully assign. The Note and Mortgage had already passed in the chain of title.

43.

The endorsement attached to the exhibit Note that was filed in the instant case states Pay to the Order of Suntrust Mortgage Inc. Plaintiff claims to have previously lost the subject Note. Plaintiff likely made copies of the Note and/or has stamped the Note themselves.

44.

Written notice of a change of the loan servicer is required by 15 U.S.C. 1641(g), 24 C.F.R. 3500.21 (d), Florida Statutes section 559.715 and by paragraph 20 of the Mortgage.

45.

Paragraph 20 of the Mortgage states in part: If there is a change of the loan servicer, borrower will be given written notice of the change which will state the name and address of the new loan servicer, the address to which payments should be made and any other information RESPA requires in connection with a notice of transfer of servicing.

46.

24 C.F.R. 3500.21(d) states: Notices of Transfer; loan servicing. (1) Requirement for notice. (i) Except as provided in this paragraph (d)(1)(i) or paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, each transferor servicer and transferee servicer of any mortgage servicing loan shall deliver to the borrower a written Notice of Transfer, containing the information described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the loan. The following transfers are not considered an assignment, sale, or transfer of mortgage loan servicing for purposes of this requirement if there is no change in the payee, address to which payment must be delivered, account number, or amount of payment due:
13

(A) Transfers between affiliates; (B) Transfers resulting from mergers or acquisitions of servicers or subservicers; and (C) Transfers between master servicers, where the subservicer remains the same. (2) Time of notice. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section: (A) The transferor servicer shall deliver the Notice of Transfer to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan; (B) The transferee servicer shall deliver the Notice of Transfer to the borrower not more than 15 days after the effective date of the transfer; and (C) The transferor and transferee servicers may combine their notices into one notice, which shall be delivered to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan. (ii) The Notice of Transfer shall be delivered to the borrower by the transferor servicer or the transferee servicer not more than 30 days after the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage servicing loan in any case in which the transfer of servicing is preceded by: (A) Termination of the contract for servicing the loan for cause; (B) Commencement of proceedings for bankruptcy of the servicer; or (C) Commencement of proceedings by the Federal Deposit Insurance . . .

47.

Florida Statutes section 559.715 provides An assignee of a mortgage and note must give the debtor written notice of such assignment within thirty (30) days after the assignment.

15 U.S.C. 1641(g) requires: (1) In general In addition to other disclosures required by this subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor; (B) the date of transfer; (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.

14

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Standing to Bring This Action

48.

Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient ultimate facts to support standing and failed to plead the specific subdivision of 673.3011 Fla. Stat. which grants it authority as a holder.

49.

Fact 1: The Note attached to the Complaint is not indorsed to Plaintiff. The Note Endorsement does not purport to convey ownership to Plaintiff as they were merely the loan servicer and did not hold any pecuniary in and to the subject Note. The Plaintiff does not own or hold the original promissory note and mortgage, is not entitled to enforce same under 673.3011 Fla. Stat. and lacks standing to bring this action against the Defendant.

50. Fact 2: Plaintiff is Chase Home Finance LLC. On information and belief, their trust(s) hold no assets, no liabilities, have no employees, hold no entitlements, possess no bank account, and therefore is not a legal trust. The Trustee has no Trust to administer. There is no legal certificate of good standing provided to the court and there is no authorization or power of attorney given to the Plaintiff enabling them to exercise the power to purchase, sell or otherwise convey, encumber, transfer or act in capacity to represent said Trust(s) in this instant case.

51. Fact 3: Chase Home Finance LLC / JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., on information and belief, has no principal in Plaintiff, has not been paid by Plaintiff and is not an agent of Plaintiff.

52. Fact 4: Plaintiff Trustee had no legal authority to accept a mortgage loan after the closing date of the Pooling and Serving Agreement and therefore, does not own the mortgage loan. Transfers of the Note and Mortgage were not in accord with the requirements of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the alleged indorsements on the subject Note did not relate to the original copy of the subject Note. Plaintiff had accumulated multiple copies of an alleged original Note. The exhibit Note submitted by the Plaintiff is not an authorized copy and is fraudulent on its face.
15

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State a Cause of Action 53. A party does not state a cause of action by merely reciting legal conclusions or tracking statutory language, but must include factual allegations. Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2D 490, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Becerra v. Equity Imports, 551 So.2d 486, 487-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Failure to state sufficient factual allegations therefore requires dismissal of the claim.

54.

Fact 1: The Note attached to the Complaint is not indorsed to Plaintiff and the undated Note Endorsements pertain to unrelated transactions that were also created upon originating the Original. The indorsements pertain to another persons transaction and the Plaintiff has no pecuniary interest in and to the Original Note. The Plaintiff does not own or hold the promissory note and mortgage, is not entitled to enforce same under 673.3011 Fla. Stat., and lacks standing to bring this action against the Defendant.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Capacity 55. Plaintiffs agent, Chase Home Finance LLC brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs agent has failed to attach a copy of the document giving it agency status to the Complaint. It has not identified the source for its legal authority, how it has legal existence, where its principal place of business is located and that it is registered to do business in the State of Florida. Plaintiff agent has failed to show the jurisdiction of this court under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120.

56.

Plaintiff has failed to attach a copy of the trust document giving it trustee status to the Complaint. It has not identified the source for its legal authority, how it has legal existence, where its principal place of business is located and that it is registered to do business in the State of Florida. Plaintiff agent has failed to show the jurisdiction of this
16

court under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120.

57.

A negative averment as to capacity is the normal rule for pleading such issues pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 1.120(a) and 1.110(b), except when capacity affects the jurisdiction of the court. Capacity to sue is an absence or a legal disability which would deprive a party of the right to come into court. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties, 31, (1971). This is in contrast to standing which requires that a party have a sufficient interest in the outcome of litigation to warrant the court's consideration of it's position. Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey and Co., 420 So.2d 398 (Fla. App. 4 Dist., 1982).

58.

In Altamonte Hitch & Trailer v. U-Haul, 498 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the Court stated: The general rule is that the body of the complaint, and not the caption, determines who is a party to the action. Weavil v. Myers, 243 N.C. 386, 90 S.E.2d 733 (1956); Motor Credit Corp. v. Ray Guy's Trailer Court, Inc., 6 N.J. Super. 563, 70 A.2d 102 (1949); and Morisse v. Billau, 70 Ohio App. 215, 45 N.E.2d 798 (1941). The naming of an individual or entity in the caption is not a sufficient basis to warrant inclusion in the action if the party is not mentioned in the body of the complaint.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unauthentic and Unauthorized Signatures Fla. 673.3081 59. Defendant denies the authenticity of each and every signature and indorsement on the subject Note and Mortgage, including their own alleged indorsements, and demand strict proof thereof, by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to 673.3081, Fla. Stat. (2011).

60. On information and belief, the Plaintiff does not have the original promissory Note executed by the Defendant, does not have the original Mortgage, does not have access to same, and any reproductions of the alleged original promissory Note and/or Mortgage constitutes unauthentic signatures/indorsements. On information and belief, the Plaintiff cannot authenticate the aforementioned signatures.

17

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Produce Original Promissory Note

61.

On information and belief, Plaintiff does not have the right to enforce the original promissory Note, does not have the right to enforce the original Mortgage, nor does it have the original promissory Note or Mortgage with proper indorsements and assignments.

62. A person seeking enforcement of a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument must first prove entitlement to enforce the instrument when the loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred. Further, he must prove the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. 673.3091 Fla. Stat. (2011).

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Estoppel and F.S. 673.3051 63. The subject promissory Note is non-negotiable paper. The Plaintiff is not a holder in due course and on information and belief, the original promissory Note is lost or stolen. Florida law provides An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. 673.3051(3), Fla. Stat. (2011)

18

64. The assignee of defaulted negotiable paper occupies the status of the holder of a nonnegotiable instrument. As to those occupying this status, the rule appears to be: There cannot be a holder in due course of a nonnegotiable instrument, and the doctrine of protecting a bona fide holder for value without notice and before maturity does not apply, no matter how widely or how narrowly the instrument may miss being negotiable or how the parties themselves may have regarded the instrument. Guaranty Mortg. & Ins. Co., v. Harris, 182 So. 2d 450, 453 (1st DCA 1966) (emphasis added). This concept is codified in 673.3021 (1)(b)(3) which defines a Holder in Due Course as one who takes an instrument Without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series;.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Violation of Contractual Application of Payments Rendered by Defendant and Illegal Charges Added to Debt 65. Defendant asserts and alleges all other facts referenced in the previous affirmative defenses and on information and belief, that Plaintiff has not only added illegal charges to the alleged debt owed by the Defendant, but has been diligent in preventing Defendant from gaining information relative to the profits made from the sale and distribution of copies of un-authentic Notes and Mortgages. Defendant demands that the excess amount received by Plaintiff, their agents, predecessors, successors and assigns should be disclosed to the court. The amount earned by Plaintiff and its agents, predecessors, successors and assigns, and related Trust or Trusts that received income by way of Defendants Note and Mortgage, or any beneficiary of credit default or derivatives swap options, is the property of the Defendant. Defendant requests all monies and overages, income, receipts, credit default swap or derivatives contracts payouts over and above the amount listed as payoff on the Federal Truth In Lending Statement (TIL) to be applied towards payoff. Any excess thereof should be returned to the Defendant as per the Mortgage contract.

19

66. Additionally, on information and belief, Plaintiff illegally added charges and fees to the alleged debt owed by the Defendant including but not limited to interest, late charges, title search expense, attorneys fees and other necessary costs.

67. Defendant hereby alleges the Plaintiff misapplied the payments which resulted in an incorrect amortization and the imposition of unwarranted fees and costs. Specifically, Defendant alleges the Plaintiff, by use of its proprietary computer software and the proprietary computer software of each and every predecessor servicer, first applied payments to fees and costs assessed on this mortgage loan, then to principal, accrued interest and escrowed costs in violation of the Mortgage resulting in an incorrect amortization of this loan when fees and costs were assessed.

68. Defendant hereby demands a full disclosure of the proprietary computer software, its methods, processes, prioritization, and application of all payments rendered by the Defendant on the mortgage loan during the entire life of the mortgage loan. Further, Defendant demands a corrected application of each and every payment in compliance with the contractual priority of the funds rendered by the Defendant on this account.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Include Necessary Party 69. The Plaintiff is not the real party in interest in that it is not the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage nor is it an agent of the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. The Plaintiff does not own and hold (have a right to enforce) the Note and Mortgage nor is

it entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage on behalf of the real owner and holder thereof. The Plaintiff has not included the real party in interest in this action. See Fund Title Note 22.02.03.

20

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Payment Supporting Subrogation

70.

Plaintiff failed to pay any value for the Note and Mortgage, thus ensuring it is not entitled to an equitable lien if one is requested. In the alternative, Plaintiff has been fully compensated by the sale, transfer, assignment or negotiation of the instrument(s) to unidentified third parties. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to subrogation.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Collateral Source Payments to Plaintiff

71.

Defendant demands credit for and application of any and all collateral source payments Plaintiff, its predecessors in interest, co-owners, trust beneficiaries, certificate holders, or any others associated with this Note and Mortgage have received or will be entitled to receive from any source whatsoever as a result of the default claimed, including credit default insurance, credit default swaps, whether funded directly by insurance and/or indemnity agreement or indirectly paid or furnished by means of federal (i.e. TARP funds) assistance on an apportioned basis for loans or groups of loans to which the subject mortgage loan of the action is claimed.

72.

On information and belief, the Plaintiff purchased, acquired or otherwise received the right to collect insurance on the subject Note and Mortgage or was otherwise insured against all losses and costs associated with enforcing the subject Note and Mortgage in the event of a default. On information and belief, the Plaintiff has actually collected full payment on the subject Note and Mortgage or will receive full payment for any delinquency including fees and costs association with enforcement of the Note and Mortgage. Thus, any further award of damages to the Plaintiff would result in a windfall to the Plaintiff.

21

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Post Cost Bond [F.S. 57.011] 73. Plaintiff is a specifically named Trustee of a foreign entity that is not registered to do business in Florida. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Florida Statutes section 57.011

and has not posted a cost bond. When a nonresident plaintiff begins an action [] he or she shall file a bond with surety to be approved by the clerk of $100, conditioned to pay all costs which may be adjudged against him or her in said action in the court in which the action is brought. On failure to file such bond within 30 days after such commencement or such removal, the defendant may, after 20 days notice to plaintiff (during which the plaintiff may file such bond), move to dismiss the action or may hold the attorney bringing or prosecuting the action liable for said costs and if they are adjudged against Plaintiff, an execution shall issue against said attorney. 57.011 Fla. Stat.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to comply with trust registration law 74. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Florida Statute 660.27, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Before transacting any trust business in this state, every trust company and every state or national bank or state or federal association having trust powers shall give satisfactory security by the deposit or pledge of security of the kind or type provided in this section having at all times a market value in an amount equal to 25 percent of the issued and outstanding capital stock of such trust company, bank, or state or federal stock association or, in the case of a federal mutual association, an equivalent amount determined by the office, or the sum of $ 25,000, whichever is greater. However, the value of the security deposited or pledged pursuant to the provisions of this section shall not be required to exceed $ 500,000. Any Notes, Mortgages, bonds, or other securities, other than shares of stock, eligible for investment by a state bank, state association, or state trust company, or eligible for investment by fiduciaries, shall be accepted as satisfactory security for the purposes of this section.

22

75.

Additionally, Florida Statute 660.27(2)(a) requires the Plaintiff to provide to Floridas Chief Financial Officer the full legal name of the Trust, its federal employer identification number; principal place of business; amount of capital stock; and amount of collateral required to be deposited by the Trust.2

76. Plaintiff is claiming to be transacting Trust business in the State of Florida which includes, but is not limited to the following: the acquiring, holding and transferring Mortgages on property in Florida; receiving assignments of promissory Notes; receiving payments from Florida consumers on Mortgage Notes; enforcing Notes by filing and prosecuting this and other foreclosure actions; foreclosing on Mortgages; purchasing foreclosed properties at judicial sales; and owning and selling properties acquired at judicial sales.

77. A cursory search of the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation suggests that the Plaintiff has failed to provide the full legal name of the Trust to the State of Florida, and consequently, has failed to pay the required statutory fee. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to comply with Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act [12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.] 78. Defendant was instructed by lender not to sign the Promissory Note and was told that his credit was not sufficient enough to warrant signing said Note. Defendant believes that his credit was neither examined nor scrutinized in making the final determination for loan approval. Defendants credit score was higher than his spouses (now ex-spouse) and his income was sound at the time of loan application. Defendants spouse (now ex-spouse) had her debts listed on the loan application yet her income was listed as zero. This was only discovered via Plaintiffs response to Defendants Qualified Written Request (QWR) that was sent subsequent to loan closing. Defendant had specifically requested to sign the Note due to the fact that Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were relocating from Palm Beach County to Brevard County where Defendant was assigned to work for his
2

See Florida Statute 658.12(8), 658.12(20), 660.34(1), 660.34(2) and 660.34(3).

23

company. His ex-spouse was not going to be working. All mortgage payments were being made by the Defendant subsequent to closing and the parties involved in loan prequalification, funding and closing were aware of this fact.
79.

Defendant encountered many problems when attempting to communicate with the Plaintiff. Defendant was instructed to obtain and submit authorization from his spouse (now exspouse) in order to speak with representatives of the loan servicer to discuss particulars about the loan. Defendant did obtain and submit to Plaintiff authorization allowing him to speak to Plaintiff regarding the loan on or about February of 2008. Yet over the course of the last several years Defendant has been repeatedly peppered with letters and notes stuck in his door instructing him to contact Plaintiff in order to attempt to resolve the issues pertaining to the loan. Astonishingly, each and every time Defendant responds to the letters and notes, Defendant is instructed to again retrieve authorization from his ex-spouse in order to speak with them regarding loan resolution options. Defendant had funds available to conduct an immediate loan resolution, and tendered same to Plaintiff, but such payment was refused and rejected by Plaintiff who claimed to Defendant that the refusal and rejection was on instructions of the representative at the executive resolution group at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm. Defendant had previously made contact with a Sr. VP at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm and was sent by referral to their executive resolution group. Plaintiff knows that the authorization was sent in, yet continually harasses Defendant with nonsensical requests and demands to obtain information it already has on file.

80.

MFC Mortgage was never a lender. They were acting as loan broker as evidenced by the line item on the HUD statement that shows commission being paid to Freemont Loans and Investments. Additionally, at no point did MFC Mortgage disclose that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) would be listed on the Mortgage and failed to disclose the $3.95 registration fee on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) as required by the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA.)

24

81.

The alleged Lender on the Mortgage induced (bribed) Defendants spouse (now exspouse) with a $7,000 credit that was not listed on the HUD statement. The sales contract price and the HUD closing statement are off by the same $7,000.

82.

Defendant closed on the subject mortgage loan on a Friday afternoon with Adams/ Adnoram Title. The place was packed and many couples and families were crammed into a tiny waiting room where dozens of others were also waiting to close. Defendants were called into the back area to sign paperwork about halfway through the pack. Throughout the process of authorizing closing documents the signing agent kept coming back in with new copies of documents to sign that we had already signed. Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were told on the first occasion that there was a mistake, could you please re-sign this. The second time it was something like I am sorry, could you please sign this document instead of the other. The third time it happened the agent came back into the room and said we made another mistake, please sign this one again. Each time she departed with a freshly inked document. Defendant believes that there were multiple copies of the Note signed that day at closing - an original blank note, an endorsed note, and a voided note.

83.

Regarding the settlement agent. Adams Title was disclosed as being the title agent on all Good Faith Estimates prior to closing, yet at time of closing several other title companies are listed on the HUD statement. These companies were not previously disclosed to the Defendant. The lender omitted this information prior to settlement and autonomously added parties just prior to closing. MERS, Freemont Loans and Investments, Adnoram Title, et al. Defendant was told by the that the seller (home builder) that it was going to streamline the finance and closing process, save him time and money and make the overall process more convenient. Defendant believes this process may have been subverted to accommodate numerous, varied, un-disclosed interests as evidenced by the aforementioned omission of the closing agent. The closing agent neither disclosed nor revealed the true lender or source of funds used at time of closing.

25

84.

Defendant had attempted to work out a solution to pay off the loan in full and was told by Plaintiffs representative that if he wanted to attempt to work out a solution he needed to cease making payments for a period of ninety days. After the ninety days had elapsed Defendant contacted the Plaintiff and was told that now the investor of the loan would not consider accepting payment. This in spite of the fact that a relative was willing to cash in stocks and retirement funds to pay off the loan in its entirety. Defendant asked who is the investor and was told Freddie Mac. Defendant called Freddie Mac and was directed to call his loan servicer. There was a nonsensical pattern of false information, distortion and deception that prevented Defendant from being able to resolve the issues pertaining to his mortgage payments. Defendant was astonished to hear that the Plaintiff would not accept any payment, including full payment and was maddened by the way that Plaintiff and the executive resolution department intentionally misdirected Defendant when he made attempts to pay.

85.

Defendant has used an extraordinary amount of due-diligence trying to identify and determine the entities involved with his mortgage. He has regularly attempted to communicate with employees and executives of MFC Mortgage, Adams Title, Adnoram Title, SunTrust Mortgage, SunTrust Securities, Chase Home Finance, JP Morgan Chase and Freddie Mac with no success. Defendant has yet to receive any meaningful response pertaining to the sales, transfers, chain of ownership, claim of ownership, trust agreements, income, profits and derivatives/credit default swap income obtained or received by the Plaintiff, its predecessors, successors, and/or assigns by way of pretending to own an interest(s) in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. At no time did Plaintiff have any bona-fide interest in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. Plaintiff was merely the loan servicer.

26

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to comply with Truth In Lending Act [15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] 86. Defendant was instructed by lender not to sign the Promissory Note and was told that his credit was not sufficient enough to warrant signing said Note. Defendant believes that his credit was neither examined nor scrutinized in making the final determination for loan approval. Defendants credit score was higher than his spouses (now ex-spouse) and his income was sound at the time of loan application. Defendants spouse (now ex-spouse) had her debts listed on the loan application yet her income was listed as zero. This was only discovered via Plaintiffs response to Defendants Qualified Written Request (QWR) that was sent subsequent to loan closing. Defendant had specifically requested to sign the Note due to the fact that Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were relocating from Palm Beach County to Brevard County where Defendant was assigned to work for his company. His ex-spouse was not going to be working. All mortgage payments were being made by the Defendant subsequent to closing and the parties involved in loan prequalification, funding and closing were aware of this fact.
87.

Defendant encountered many problems when attempting to communicate with the Plaintiff. Defendant was instructed to obtain and submit authorization from his spouse (now exspouse) in order to speak with representatives of the loan servicer to discuss particulars about the loan. Defendant did obtain and submit to Plaintiff authorization allowing him to speak to Plaintiff regarding the loan on or about February of 2008. Yet over the course of the last several years Defendant has been repeatedly peppered with letters and notes stuck in his door instructing him to contact Plaintiff in order to attempt to resolve the issues pertaining to the loan. Astonishingly, each and every time Defendant responds to the letters and notes, Defendant is instructed to again retrieve authorization from his ex-spouse in order to speak with them regarding loan resolution options. Defendant had funds available to conduct an immediate loan resolution, and tendered same to Plaintiff, but such payment was refused and rejected by Plaintiff who claimed to Defendant that the refusal and rejection was on instructions of the representative at the executive resolution group at

27

Plaintiffs attorneys law firm. Defendant had previously made contact with a Sr. VP at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm and was sent by referral to their executive resolution group. Plaintiff knows that the authorization was sent in, yet continually harasses Defendant with nonsensical requests and demands to obtain information it already has on file.

88.

MFC Mortgage was never a lender. They were acting as loan broker as evidenced by the line item on the HUD statement that shows commission being paid to Freemont Loans and Investments. Additionally, at no point did MFC Mortgage disclose that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) would be listed on the Mortgage and failed to disclose the $3.95 registration fee on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) as required by the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA.)

89.

The alleged Lender on the Mortgage induced (bribed) Defendants spouse (now exspouse) with a $7,000 credit that was not listed on the HUD statement. The sales contract price and the HUD closing statement are off by the same $7,000.

90.

Defendant closed on the subject mortgage loan on a Friday afternoon with Adams/ Adnoram Title. The place was packed and many couples and families were crammed into a tiny waiting room where dozens of others were also waiting to close. Defendants were called into the back area to sign paperwork about halfway through the pack. Throughout the process of authorizing closing documents the signing agent kept coming back in with new copies of documents to sign that we had already signed. Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were told on the first occasion that there was a mistake, could you please re-sign this. The second time it was something like I am sorry, could you please sign this document instead of the other. The third time it happened the agent came back into the room and said we made another mistake, please sign this one again. Each time she departed with a freshly inked document. Defendant believes that there were multiple copies of the Note signed that day at closing - an original blank note, an endorsed note, and

28

a voided note.

91.

Regarding the settlement agent. Adams Title was disclosed as being the title agent on all Good Faith Estimates prior to closing, yet at time of closing several other title companies are listed on the HUD statement. These companies were not previously disclosed to the Defendant. The lender omitted this information prior to settlement and autonomously added parties just prior to closing. MERS, Freemont Loans and Investments, Adnoram Title, et al. Defendant was told by the that the seller (home builder) that it was going to streamline the finance and closing process, save him time and money and make the overall process more convenient. Defendant believes this process may have been subverted to accommodate numerous, varied, un-disclosed interests as evidenced by the aforementioned omission of the closing agent. The closing agent neither disclosed nor revealed the true lender or source of funds used at time of closing.

92.

Defendant had attempted to work out a solution to pay off the loan in full and was told by Plaintiffs representative that if he wanted to attempt to work out a solution he needed to cease making payments for a period of ninety days. After the ninety days had elapsed Defendant contacted the Plaintiff and was told that now the investor of the loan would not consider accepting payment. This in spite of the fact that a relative was willing to cash in stocks and retirement funds to pay off the loan in its entirety. Defendant asked who is the investor and was told Freddie Mac. Defendant called Freddie Mac and was directed to call his loan servicer. There was a nonsensical pattern of false information, distortion and deception that prevented Defendant from being able to resolve the issues pertaining to his mortgage payments. Defendant was astonished to hear that the Plaintiff would not accept any payment, including full payment and was maddened by the way that Plaintiff and the executive resolution department intentionally misdirected Defendant when he made attempts to pay.

93.

Defendant has used an extraordinary amount of due-diligence trying to identify and

29

determine the entities involved with his mortgage. He has regularly attempted to communicate with employees and executives of MFC Mortgage, Adams Title, Adnoram Title, SunTrust Mortgage, SunTrust Securities, Chase Home Finance, JP Morgan Chase and Freddie Mac with no success. Defendant has yet to receive any meaningful response pertaining to the sales, transfers, chain of ownership, claim of ownership, trust agreements, income, profits and derivatives/credit default swap income obtained or received by the Plaintiff, its predecessors, successors, and/or assigns by way of pretending to own an interest(s) in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. At no time did Plaintiff have any bona-fide interest in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. Plaintiff was merely the loan servicer.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FRAUD 94. Defendant was instructed by lender not to sign the Promissory Note and was told that his credit was not sufficient enough to warrant signing said Note. Defendant believes that his credit was neither examined nor scrutinized in making the final determination for loan approval. Defendants credit score was higher than his spouses (now ex-spouse) and his income was sound at the time of loan application. Defendants spouse (now ex-spouse) had her debts listed on the loan application yet her income was listed as zero. This was only discovered via Plaintiffs response to Defendants Qualified Written Request (QWR) that was sent subsequent to loan closing. Defendant had specifically requested to sign the Note due to the fact that Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were relocating from Palm Beach County to Brevard County where Defendant was assigned to work for his company. His ex-spouse was not going to be working. All mortgage payments were being made by the Defendant subsequent to closing and the parties involved in loan prequalification, funding and closing were aware of this fact.
95.

Defendant encountered many problems when attempting to communicate with the Plaintiff. Defendant was instructed to obtain and submit authorization from his spouse (now ex30

spouse) in order to speak with representatives of the loan servicer to discuss particulars about the loan. Defendant did obtain and submit to Plaintiff authorization allowing him to speak to Plaintiff regarding the loan on or about February of 2008. Yet over the course of the last several years Defendant has been repeatedly peppered with letters and notes stuck in his door instructing him to contact Plaintiff in order to attempt to resolve the issues pertaining to the loan. Astonishingly, each and every time Defendant responds to the letters and notes, Defendant is instructed to again retrieve authorization from his ex-spouse in order to speak with them regarding loan resolution options. Defendant had funds available to conduct an immediate loan resolution, and tendered same to Plaintiff, but such payment was refused and rejected by Plaintiff who claimed to Defendant that the refusal and rejection was on instructions of the representative at the executive resolution group at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm. Defendant had previously made contact with a Sr. VP at Plaintiffs attorneys law firm and was sent by referral to their executive resolution group. Plaintiff knows that the authorization was sent in, yet continually harasses Defendant with nonsensical requests and demands to obtain information it already has on file.

96.

MFC Mortgage was never a lender. They were acting as loan broker as evidenced by the line item on the HUD statement that shows commission being paid to Freemont Loans and Investments. Additionally, at no point did MFC Mortgage disclose that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) would be listed on the Mortgage and failed to disclose the $3.95 registration fee on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) as required by the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA.)

97.

The alleged Lender on the Mortgage induced (bribed) Defendants spouse (now exspouse) with a $7,000 credit that was not listed on the HUD statement. The sales contract price and the HUD closing statement are off by the same $7,000.

98.

Defendant closed on the subject mortgage loan on a Friday afternoon with Adams/

31

Adnoram Title. The place was packed and many couples and families were crammed into a tiny waiting room where dozens of others were also waiting to close. Defendants were called into the back area to sign paperwork about halfway through the pack. Throughout the process of authorizing closing documents the signing agent kept coming back in with new copies of documents to sign that we had already signed. Defendant and his spouse (now ex-spouse) were told on the first occasion that there was a mistake, could you please re-sign this. The second time it was something like I am sorry, could you please sign this document instead of the other. The third time it happened the agent came back into the room and said we made another mistake, please sign this one again. Each time she departed with a freshly inked document. Defendant believes that there were multiple copies of the Note signed that day at closing - an original blank note, an endorsed note, and a voided note.

99.

Regarding the settlement agent. Adams Title was disclosed as being the title agent on all Good Faith Estimates prior to closing, yet at time of closing several other title companies are listed on the HUD statement. These companies were not previously disclosed to the Defendant. The lender omitted this information prior to settlement and autonomously added parties just prior to closing. MERS, Freemont Loans and Investments, Adnoram Title, et al. Defendant was told by the that the seller (home builder) that it was going to streamline the finance and closing process, save him time and money and make the overall process more convenient. Defendant believes this process may have been subverted to accommodate numerous, varied, un-disclosed interests as evidenced by the aforementioned omission of the closing agent. The closing agent neither disclosed nor revealed the true lender or source of funds used at time of closing.

100. Defendant had attempted to work out a solution to pay off the loan in full and was told by Plaintiffs representative that if he wanted to attempt to work out a solution he needed to cease making payments for a period of ninety days. After the ninety days had elapsed Defendant contacted the Plaintiff and was told that now the investor of the loan would

32

not consider accepting payment. This in spite of the fact that a relative was willing to cash in stocks and retirement funds to pay off the loan in its entirety. Defendant asked who is the investor and was told Freddie Mac. Defendant called Freddie Mac and was directed to call his loan servicer. There was a nonsensical pattern of false information, distortion and deception that prevented Defendant from being able to resolve the issues pertaining to his mortgage payments. Defendant was astonished to hear that the Plaintiff would not accept any payment, including full payment and was maddened by the way that Plaintiff and the executive resolution department intentionally misdirected Defendant when he made attempts to pay.

101. Defendant has used an extraordinary amount of due-diligence trying to identify and determine the entities involved with his mortgage. He has regularly attempted to communicate with employees and executives of MFC Mortgage, Adams Title, Adnoram Title, SunTrust Mortgage, SunTrust Securities, Chase Home Finance, JP Morgan Chase and Freddie Mac with no success. Defendant has yet to receive any meaningful response pertaining to the sales, transfers, chain of ownership, claim of ownership, trust agreements, income, profits and derivatives/credit default swap income obtained or received by the Plaintiff, its predecessors, successors, and/or assigns by way of pretending to own an interest(s) in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. At no time did Plaintiff have any bona-fide interest in and to the subject Note and Mortgage. Plaintiff was merely the loan servicer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 102. Defendant hereby request they be awarded attorneys fees pursuant to the terms of the promissory Note and Mortgage and also pursuant to section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2011).

33

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHEREFORE CLAUSE 103. Wherefore, Defendant demands judgment against Plaintiff and requests the court deny Plaintiffs requested relief of foreclosure, and award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Defendant; order discharge, release or cancellation of the alleged mortgage and send Plaintiff forthwith without day.

___________________________ George Gingo, FBN 879533 James E. Orth, Jr., FBN 75941 2215 Garden Street Suite B Titusville, FL 32796 (321) 264-9624 (866) 311-9573 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail, this 24nd day of October, 2012, to Scott Lin, Ronald R Wolfe & Associates P L, P.O. Box 25018, Tampa, FL 33622-5018. _________________________ George Gingo

34