Hearing Transcript. American Home Mortgage - Case Dismissed

1
1 2 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 07-009600-CI-11
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ___________________________/ 13 14 15 16 DATE TAKEN: 17 TIME: 18 PLACE: 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 24 25

ORANGE LEGAL 800-275-7991
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, Plaintiff, vs.
LUCY BEDNAREK, et al., Defendants.
NON-JURY TRIAL HELD BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE PAMELA A.M. CAMPBELL March 22, 2012 1:29 p.m. - 4:34 p.m. St. Petersburg Judicial Building 545 First Avenue North Room 300 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Danielle Fernandez Court Reporter, Notary Public, State of Florida
1 2 3
A P P E A R A N C E S: ALBERT A. ZAKARIAN, ESQUIRE TAHIRAH PAYNE, ESQUIRE OF: Law Offices of Daniel Charles Consuegra 9204 King Palm Drive Tampa, Florida 33619 (813)915-8660 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
4 5 6 7 8 OF: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MATTHEW D. WEIDNER, ESQUIRE JASON KRAL, ESQUIRE MICHAEL FUINO, ESQUIRE Matthew D. Weidner, P.A. 1229 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 (727)894-3159 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS Lucy Bednarek
ALSO PRESENT:
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS
I N D E X 4
TESTIMONY OF KRYSTAL KEARSE: Direct Examination by Mr. Zakarian Continued Direct Examination by Mr. Zakarian Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Weidner 6 16
10,44 45 100
Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Zakarian CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
E X H I B I T S (Exhibit retained by the Court) Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 - (letter dated August 2, 2007) 45
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S * * * * * THE COURT: All right. So in case you
all haven't realized, the calendar is for mortgage foreclosures and they're all set for trial this afternoon. files. I'm going through the
I would like to remind everybody of
the standard that was set out in the McLean versus JP Morgan Chase. That somebody has got
to -- the plaintiff has got to prove standing at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. seems to me that most of these files today have that problem. So I'm going to go through some of these cases. In the beginning -- if you, at this It
point in time, want to take a voluntarily dismissal, just let me know that at the beginning. Otherwise, if you want to argue
your standing, we'll go through these. First case is going -- as I call your name, if you'd please come forward at this point. So American Home Mortgage versus All right. And since we do have a
Bednarek.
court reporter, if you'd go ahead and announce your names for the case, then.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. ZAKARIAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Albert Zakarian from Consuegra Law for the plaintiff, as well as my co-counsel Tahirah Payne for the plaintiff. MR. WEIDNER: May it please the court,
Your Honor, Matthew Weidner, W-e-i-d-n-e-r, on behalf of the defendant, Lucy Bednarek. THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Zakarian, you may proceed. MR. ZAKARIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, this particular case is a simple residential mortgage foreclosure involving a $630,000 loan in which the defendant has not paid in four-and-a-half years with an arrearage of over $290,000. We have brought
our corporate representative witness with me today. witness. THE COURT: All right, please. I call Krystal Kearse from I would ask permission to call that
MR. ZAKARIAN:
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. THE COURT: Ms. Kearse, come on up. You
can take the witness stand, please. (Krystal Kearse was duly sworn by The Honorable Pamela A.M. Campbell.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS: THE COURT: last name. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: ahead. MR. ZAKARIAN:
I do. Thank you. And spell your
Kearse, K-e-a-r-s-e. All right. Thank you. Go
Thank you, Your Honor.
And for the record, I will note that administratively, the note and mortgage have been filed on June 8th, 2009. contain a blank endorsement. The note does It is sitting in
the file, and we would rely on those original documents as part of our case. THE COURT: Thank you. I have seen them.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, will you please state your
name for the record? A. Q. A. Krystal Kearse. And who is your employer? American Home Mortgage Serving -MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Objection, your Honor. Your objection? Yes, we need some
clarification on who that entity is.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. ZAKARIAN:
Your Honor, I just asked
her who the employer is, and I didn't ask another question. THE COURT: May I proceed? Mr. Weidner, explain to me
what is the basis of your objection. MR. WEIDNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Raised in our motion to dismiss and specifically raised as an affirmative defense in our answer in affirmative defenses, we challenged the capacity of the plaintiff that's named in the lawsuit. This case is
going to illustrate for the Court very clearly why capacity is no important. We'll note in this lawsuit that they know that American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., without saying anything more. There are at
least two separate and distinct American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.'s that existed at one point in time. The witness has stated that's
she's here to testify on behalf American Home Serving Inc. Before she goes any further, she
needs to make clear which she's testifying on behalf of. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Your Honor --
Well, at this point in

800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
time -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: I'm sorry --
-- at this point in time,
she's just saying that's who she's employed by, so I'll allow the cross-examination later on. So go ahead. MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, what entity do you work for Thank you, Your Honor.
for your employer, American Home Servicing, Inc.? A. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation. Q. A. Q. It's a Delaware Corporation? Correct. And is that Delaware Corporation the
current plaintiff in the lawsuit at issue? A. Q. Yes. And how long have you worked for American
Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.? A. Q. A. One year. And in what capacity? I work as a foreclosure special assets
specialist. Q. A. And what are your duties? We assist with handling contested litigated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
files in resolving those issues that may be raised within those files. Q. And is this particular case a contested
file that you would handle in your position with the plaintiff? A. Q. Yes. As part of your duties, do you also give
testimony in cases? A. Q. I do. Are you familiar with the business
records of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.? A. I am. MR. WEIDNER: Foundation. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Are there business records that your Sustained. Objection, Your Honor.
employer maintains with regard to residential mortgages? A. Q. records? A. Q. I am. And is it part of your duties to be Yes. And are you familiar with those business
familiar with those business records?

10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A.
It is. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, at this point I
would like to voir dire the witness. THE COURT: Were you finished -- were you
finished at that point in time? MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: With what, Your Honor?
The basis for the foundation
as to how she knows about the records. MR. ZAKARIAN: voir dire. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Weidner. Mr. Weidner can certainly
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. WEIDNER: Q. You just stated you work for American
Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., a Delaware Corporation? A. Q. Correct. Are you familiar with American Home
Mortgage Servicing, a Maryland Corporation? A. Q. I'm familiar with it, yes. And did you review any of the books or
records associated with American Home Mortgage Servicing, a Maryland Corporation? A. I did, yes.
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
Did you review the bankruptcy proceedings
filed by American Home Mortgage Corporation, a Maryland Corporation? A. Q. I did not. Okay. Has American Home Mortgage
Servicing obtained approval of a bankruptcy court to proceed with this action? A. I'm -- not to my knowledge. That's not
within my -Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the books
and records of American Home Mortgage Servicing, a Maryland Corporation? A. I'm familiar with the records that have been
boarded into our loan system. Q. My question was: Are you familiar with
the books and records that were maintained by American Home Mortgage Corporation, Inc. a Maryland Corporation? A. I'm familiar with the records that have been
boarded into our loan servicing system. Q. Okay. Does that indicate that -- well,
let's make this clear -- is it clear in your mind that there was an American Home Mortgage Corporation, a Maryland Corporation? A. Correct.
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
And it's clear in your mind that there is
a separate corporation, American Home Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware Corporation? A. Q. Correct. Do you know what computer operating
system was maintained by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a Maryland Corporation? A. Q. No, I've never worked for that company. Do you know anything about how the
records of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a Maryland Corporation were maintained? A. I know the records were kept in the regular
business industry standards. Q. How do you know that, what's the basis
for your knowledge? A. Because they're kept the same way they are
kept within our company today. Q. Did you travel back in time to American
Home Mortgage Servicing, a Maryland Corporation? A. Specifically to -MR. WEIDNER: Objection. Argumentive,
Your Honor, travel back in time. THE COURT: Mr. Weidner, if you could
reword your question.
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. WEIDNER: Q. Do you know when American Home Mortgage
Corporation, a Maryland Corporation ceased to function as a business? A. Q. I don't know. Do you know when they ceased to function
as a business prior to when you -- do you know if they ceased to function as a business prior to when you started working for American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation? A. Q. I don't know. Okay. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, I'd like to
approach the witness. THE COURT: Mr. Zakarian? MR. WEIDNER: MR. ZAKARIAN: Yes. Okay. Are you asking the Would you like to show
Court to take judicial notice? MR. WEIDNER: MR. ZAKARIAN: have any objection. record. MR. WEIDNER: Okay. Your Honor, what I'm I was. And if you are, we don't It's part of the public
showing the witness here are the corporate

14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
records that establish that American Home Mortgage Servicing, a Delaware Corporation came into existence. BY MR. WEIDNER: Q. Could you read that right there
(indicating)? A. Q. As of the 13th day of November, AD 2007. Okay. The date of filing of this
lawsuit -- are you familiar with the date of this lawsuit? A. Q. A. Uh-huh. And what was that date? I don't know exactly, but it was
September 2007. Q. Okay. So it was before the corporation
you're testifying on behalf of came into existence; is that correct? A. Q. Correct. Okay. Now, you testified previously that
you knew generally about the books and records of the Massachusetts Corporation, correct? A. Q. The Maryland? I'm sorry, the Maryland Corporation, yes.
But do you have any personal knowledge of how those records were entered in?
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that?
A. Q.
I don't have personal knowledge. Okay. Do you know where the records were
physically located? A. Q. I don't. Do you know how many records were
inputted into a computer system? A. Q. I don't. Do you know whether those records had any
tests or any independent reliability? A. In keeping with the industry standards, I
would assume so. Q. But you have no personal knowledge of
A. Q.
No personal knowledge. Do you have any knowledge, personal
knowledge, of the business activities that existed in that corporation that existed prior to the Delaware, Maryland Corporation? A. Q. No, I don't have any personal knowledge. Okay. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, I'm going to
object to this witness testifying to the records that are being entered into this case. She has no knowledge of records that we entered in. As this Court recognizes and his
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
colleague recognizes, she's got to prove, through witness testimony, that they had the note at the time the corporation -- at the time the lawsuit was filed. This witness has
testified that she doesn't have any knowledge of that. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, if I may
further inquire with the witness so that we can get on the record the basis before you make any such ruling. THE COURT: Overruled. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ZAKARIAN:
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, did you have an opportunity
to review the business records of the plaintiff in this case? A. Q. I did. And did you have an opportunity to see
that the business records reflecting the loan in this case are housed within the plaintiff's business records? A. Q. They are. And are those business records kept in
the regular course of business?

17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A. Q.
Yes, they are. And is the information inputted into
those records by persons with knowledge at the time the transaction had occurred? A. Yes, they are. MR. WEIDNER: MR. ZAKARIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, I think I've
given Mr. Weidner plenty of latitude -THE COURT: I'll determine that. Can I please ask the
MR. ZAKARIAN: question? THE COURT:
He's made an objection.
So
what's the basis for your objection? MR. WEIDNER: Foundation. We need to be
clear what business records we're describing. THE COURT: Sustained. Thank you.
MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q.
Would you please describe the business
records as they exist with the plaintiff? A. Currently, the business records that we have
within our servicing platform are payment history, loan history, note, mortgage, origination file, any correspondence, any letters that were sent to the borrower, any letters received from the borrower,
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
collection notes, conversations, telephone calls, anything pertaining from, you know, the origination of this loan until present. Q. Now, are those business records housed
within some type of computer system? A. Yes, they're kept in these -- image The
documents are kept within our imaging system.
collections are kept within our collection database. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Now, what exactly is the database called? MSP. And are you familiar with that database? I am. And have you worked in that database? I have. And are you familiar with the image
document system that is maintained by the plaintiff? A. Q. I am. And where are the actual physical
documents kept with regard to loans like the one here? A. Q. They're kept with the records custodian. And are you familiar with the records
custodian, where the note and mortgage in this case were kept?
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is?
A.
Yes, you mean the -MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.
Foundation. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Do you know who the investor in this case Sustained.
A.
The investor is Deutsche Bank. MR. WEIDNER: Objection --
BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. A. And how do you know? That information is kept within our records Within MSP, the records system, it
system as well.
tells us who the investor is of the loan. Q. And did you specifically look at the
system, the MSP system, when you compared the plaintiff's business records to make that determination? A. Q. I did. And is it also contained within your
records system who the records custodian is for the investor? A. Q. A. It is. And who is that entity? I'm sorry. Say that again.
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q. A. Q.
The records custodian for the investor. BB&T. And in this case were you able to
determine that the note and the mortgage were kept with BB&T? A. Q. Yes, they were. And that was until the time that they
were actually filed with the court? MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor. The
witness has testified that she's only worked for a year for the Delaware Corporation. It
wasn't in existence at the point in time of all this testimony that she's given. She's
not testifying to anything based on personal knowledge. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, did you have an opportunity Sustained.
to find out when the closing for this particular loan was? MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: know? MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, she hasn't
800-275-7991
Objection, Your Honor. Basis? Foundation. How would she
ORANGE LEGAL
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
even given an answer yet, so she may very well be providing the basis for the answer. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. A. How did you do that? In review of the note and the mortgage and You can answer the question. Yes.
the closing documents. Q. Are those contained within plaintiff's
business records? A. Q. Yes, they are. And what did you determine was the date
of the loan closing for this particular mortgage? A. This loan closed on May 31st, 2005. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, if the witness
is going to be relying on records, I'd like to have him enter it. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. And do you have notes that you have been
referring to to refresh your recollection as to specific dates? A. Q. I do. And did you garner that information
directly from the business records that you reviewed of the plaintiff?
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A. Q.
I did. And were those business records
pertaining to this particular mortgage and note? A. Q. Yes, they are. Did you discover by looking at the
business records what happened to this particular note and mortgage after the closing on May 31st, 2005? MR. WEIDNER: Foundation. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, I think she's Objection, Your Honor.
testifying pretty clearly that she's relying on her review of the specific business records contained by the plaintiff with regard to this note and mortgage, and my questions continue to bring up that point. So there's a clear
foundation for the witness who's relying on their business records. If you allow me to march through where this loan went and how it ended up with the plaintiff, you'll find out exactly what the foundation is. I'll even talk about this
servicing or acquisition transfer of the documents that are contained in the business records of the plaintiff from the prior
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
servicer. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, did you make a determination Go ahead.
from your review of plaintiff's business records what happened to the note and mortgage after May 31st, 2005? A. Q. A. I did. And what was your finding? Once the loan closed, the loan was sold to It then entered a pool on At that time the documents were sent
an investor.
June 1st, 2005.
to Deutsche Bank -- or their custodian, BB&T, and they kept with BB&T from June 1st through the time the documents were sent to our counsel, and those documents were requested by -- were requested from BB&T to be sent to counsel on April 9th -April 6th, 2009. On April 10th, we sent a request to BB&T in 2009. On April 28th we received the documents from
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., received the documents from BB&T. And then on May 13th, 2009, we
sent them to counsel for evaluating the case. Q. Did you garner that information from the
business records kept in the normal course of

24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
business for the plaintiff? A. Q. I did. Now, let me back you up for a minute.
You said that the loan, virtually the next day, was put into the investor Deutsche Bank into a trust? A. Correct. MR. WEIDNER: Honor. I'm going to object, Your
There is no foundation for her to
provide that testimony. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor. There is a foundation,
She's already testified that she
is relying on the business records, and that the business records reflect Deutsche Bank as the investor from June 1st until today, which is virtually the next day. MR. WEIDNER: We have to be clear about
what business records we're talking about, Your Honor. We have to keep in mind here Two
there are two sets of companies here. sets of business records, and they're
continuing to refer to business records when they're, in fact, two sets of business records. MR. ZAKARIAN: During the voir dire
counsel already kind of made clear through the

25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
witness that the witness is from the corporation, the Delaware Corporation, correct, and there is also a Maryland company of the same name, Your Honor, and I'm getting to -- actually, my next questions will concerning the exact transfer, the Maryland Corporation and the Delaware Corporation acquisitions. So we're going to be getting to
that very shorty. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, you said that from your Okay. Go ahead.
review of the plaintiff's business records, you determined that Deutsche Bank was the investor? A. Q. Correct. And that the physical note and mortgage
were kept with BB&T, the records custodian? A. Q. Correct. Were you able to make a determination in
June of 2005 who, at that time, was servicing the loan? A. That was being serviced by American Home
Mortgage, the Maryland Corporation. Q. A. The Maryland corporation? Correct.

26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. WEIDNER:
I'm going to object.
determination when -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: 2005 --
Of 2005 -Right.
At the time of June 2005, your research
of the business records from the plaintiff is that the Maryland Corporation was servicing the loan at that time? A. Q. Correct. And how do you know that they were How do your business
servicing at the time? records reflect that? A.
Our business records show that -- you know,
it has like the loan payment history all referenced that it was from that company. That was the company.
Any letters or correspondence all went out from that company. We also, based on the loan number, can tell
who was servicing the loan. Q. And in this case you indicated that it
was the Maryland Corporation that was first servicing the loan? A. Q. Correct. That is from a review of the plaintiff's
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
business records? A. Q. A. Q. A. Correct. At some point did the servicing change? Yes. Can you explain the change? There was a purchase between American Home
Mortgage Company, the company that we now know it as, and the American Home Mortgage, the Maryland Corporation where, AHMSI, the Delaware Corporation acquired or purchased American Home, the Mortgage -or the Maryland Corporation along with their smaller umbrella companies under them. AHMSI, Ameriquest. I think it was like
There were a few smaller companies
that were purchased in that group, but AHMSI, the Delaware Corporation acquired all of those servicing rights, sub-servicing rights, acquired the business records, and those were all boarded into our loan servicing system July 1st, 2008, but the actual purchase was April 11th, 2008. Q. And that's based on your review of
plaintiff's business records? A. Q. Correct. And plaintiff's business records would
contain the actual acquisition documentation to show you what that information was?
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A. Q.
Correct. How exactly did the servicing information
from the Maryland AHMSI Corporation get transferred over to the Delaware Corporation? A. It was an electronic transfer. When the
transfer takes place, it's called on-boarding where there are checks and balances in place, where payments -- you know, the PB, the principal balance, interest, the accounting of the loan is, you know, accounted for. There's checks and balances to make
sure that all figures are in place, all documents are in place. If there is anything missing or not
appropriated, it's not calculating correctly, the loan itself is returned back to the original servicer before it will be boarded into our loan servicing. Q. And that information you are giving is
from your review of plaintiff's regularly kept business records? A. Q. Correct. And that includes the merger information
or the acquisition information of the Maryland Corporation? A. Q. Correct. Now, did you say that the purchase was in
April of 2008?
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 loan?
A. Q.
Correct.
That's the initial purchase.
Were you able to determine from your
review of the plaintiff's business records when the loan actually boarded for the Delaware Corporation, which is our plaintiff? A. Q. July 1st, 2008. Why is there a lag of time between April
and the July boarding of this loan? A. That's the duration of time where the loans
are being, you know, checked and balanced before they can be actually boarded into the system. To make sure
that all figures, all payments, escrow, principal, interest, you know, all documents are in the proper order that they should be in order for us to accept the loan and continue servicing. Q. So it's plaintiff's regular business
practice to do the checks and balances before actually boarding the loan? A. Q. Correct. And was that done with this particular
A. Q. A. Q.
Yes, it was. And so it boarded on July 1st, 2008? Yes. And is that information that you have
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
gleaned from the regularly kept business records of the plaintiff? A. Q. It is, yes. Now, earlier you had testified, I
believe, that there was an electronic transfer of information between the Maryland Corporation, which was originally servicing the loan, and the plaintiff; is that correct? A. Q. A. Correct. And what does that information include? That information would be all of the
origination documents, the closing documents, note, mortgage, payment history, loan history, collection notes, correspondence, every document pertaining to this loan, every communication pertaining to this loan would be electronically transferred over. Q. Now, during this entire process the
physical note and mortgage remained with BB&T, the records custodian for the investor? A. Q. Correct. And you had earlier testified that the
first time the original documents were requested was for the purpose of filing them in this case? A. Q. Correct. And you see that in the business records?
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 say?
A. Q.
Correct. Once servicing begins with the plaintiff,
what occurs after July 1st of 2008? MR. WEIDNER: What is servicing? THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, could you explain how a loan Sustained. Objection, Your Honor.
is serviced by the plaintiff once it is boarded? A. The loan is serviced through collection of
payments, collection calls, you know, maintaining -if the borrower defaults, paying, you know, taxes, insurance, just servicing the loan. Q. automatic? A. Q. A. Yes. And how does it occur? Once the loan is boarded into the system it I'm not sure.
Is that a process that is somewhat
automatically begins to calculate when payments are due, when payments are not received. automatic process. Q. Is that part of the MSP system, did you It's just an
A. Q.
Yes, it is. And how are payments received by

32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
plaintiff's MSP system? A. Payments can be received by mail. A
borrower can walk a payment into a facility if they live close enough. They can make payments through There are multiple ways for
Western Union, MoneyGram. payments to be received. Q.
And when those payments are received, is
a person at AHMSI responsible for making sure it gets inputted into the system? A. Q. Yes, they are. How about for electronic payments, how
are they received? A. Those are received electronically, but there
is a person that monitors to make sure those payments are applied properly. Q. What other duties besides what you've
described -- or what you have already testified to are part of servicing a loan? A. Like if the property goes into foreclosure
or instituting a foreclosure if a borrower defaults, if it then goes into foreclosure, the servicing will maintain the property, make sure the property is secured, vacant, property appraisals, evaluations are done, you know, constant communication with the borrower to either obtain payment, try to work out
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
some type of modification forbearance, you know, anything to essentially get the loan back into, you know, active -- actively being paid on. Q. Now, in this particular case, do the
business records of the plaintiff that are kept in the normal course of business reflect the loan payment history for this particular loan with Ms. Lucy Bednarek? A. Q. Yes. And does it not include the prior
servicing information from the Delaware Corporation, as it's being referred to? A. Q. It does, yes. How can you verify, as the plaintiff, the
Delaware Corporation's loan numbers and payment numbers before the loan gets boarded? A. The -MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.
She's already testified she knows nothing about that. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, the question I
asked went directly to how the plaintiff verifies that information. I didn't ask
Ms. Kearse how the prior servicer did it. THE COURT: Well, isn't that sort of
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
important? MR. ZAKARIAN: We're asking how the
plaintiff actually verified the prior servicing information was correct to the extent they could do so. I asked. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: All right. You can answer. That's the question
Those figures are verified They go through the
through our own boarding.
prior payment history and calculate it based on payments received, payments not received, late fees, the interest rate, you know, any advances that may have been made from the escrow are all calculated to ensure that when that payment history is boarded into our system, that those are the accurate figures. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. So is that an audit of the prior
servicer's payment history? A. Q. Yes, it is. And what happens with the plaintiff if
there is a discrepancy discovered from the prior servicer? A. That particular loan and that issue will be
kicked back to the prior servicer to -- you will not

35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
board the loan unless the audit checks out correct and all figures are correct. That's the only way the loan
is boarded into the system. Q. And were you able to make a determination
based on your review of plaintiff's business records whether that process was successful in this particular case? A. Q. Yes, it was successful. And is that the reason why the loan was
boarded on July 1st, 2008? A. Q. Yes, it is. Do the business records reflect that the
plaintiff started servicing the loan from July of 2008 forward? A. Q. Yes, they do. Has there been any other servicing
transfers during that time period until your testimony today? A. Q. No, there hasn't. Were you able to make a determination as
to payments on this particular loan? MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.
She's testified that they've only been servicing since July of 2008. She could only
provide testimony from that point forward.

36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: answer. THE WITNESS: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q.
Overruled.
Go ahead and
What was the question?
Were you able to make a determination as
to the status of payments on this loan based on your review of the business records contained by the plaintiff? A. Yes. Based on my review of the payment
records, a payment has not been received since their June 1st 2007 payment. July 1st, 2007. Q. And has there been any other payments They were now due for
made based on your review of the records with the plaintiff since July 1st of 2007? A. There were some payment attempts. There
were some repayment plans that were worked out, but all of the payments that were received were returned as insufficient funds. Q. So with that in mind, were there any
actually payments received or credited to the account since July 1st of 2007? A. Q. No. Did you have an opportunity to review
plaintiff's business records to determine if any

37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
acceleration notices were provided to Ms. Bednarek during the course of this loan? A. Yes, there were quite a few letters that
were provided. Q. Where did you find the information about
the acceleration letters? A. That information was kept within our
collection notes, our -- the loan servicing platform and the letters were also kept within the imaging system. Q. Is it true that the imaging system
contains some copies of the acceleration letters? A. Yes. MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.
They're referring to documents not received as best evidence. THE COURT: ahead. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. And you also indicated that there are I'm sure he'll get to it. Go
notations in the system when the acceleration letters are sent out? A. Q. Correct. Are there also notations in the system if
any of those acceleration letters are received by

38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
any particular method of mailing? A. Yes. We -- I also found some notes within
the system that showed that the letters had been received by the defendant and signed for through certified mail. We received the green card back
showing acceptance of the letters. Q. Now, were you able to make a
determination -- well -- strike that. Is it the regular business practice of the plaintiff when they send out a letter -- an acceleration letter -- to send that letter by certified mail? A. Yes, we sent the letter by certified mail
and first-class mail. Q. A. Q. By both methods? Yes. Is it also the business practice to
receive the return receipt, what they call green cards, back for those letters? A. Q. Yes, it is. Are those green cards always notated in
the notes contained within the business records? A. Q. Yes. And are they always received by the
plaintiff in this case?

39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A. Q.
Yes. And what happens if a green card is
received by the plaintiff, but not notated in the business records? A. Q. An image of it is kept. An image of it is kept. Then you said
earlier when you looked at the business records for this particular loan, there were acceleration notices that were sent? A. Q. Correct. Do you know when the dates of those
notices were? A. I do. There was a letter sent on
February 16th, 2007, April 17th, 2007, June 17th, 2007, August 2nd, 2007, and September 2nd, 2007. MR. WEIDNER: And I'm going to object to
all of that as hearsay. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Where does that information come from
that you just testified to? A. This information was found within our
business records. Q. And within those business records, where
were those notations kept?

40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A.
They were kept in the collection log where
all conversations and letters that are sent out and entry is always entered in when there's any type of correspondence on this loan. So it's logged in with
the date and the time that the letter was generated and sent out. Q. Now, as I recall, you testified earlier
that the plaintiff in this case did not board the loan until July 1st, 2008; is that right? A. Q. Correct. The letters that you just listed off
were 2007 letters, correct? A. Q. Yes. How did you make a determination that
those letters were sent? A. The prior servicer's business records were
boarded into our system as well so that way we're able to see prior servicing efforts in terms of collection, and that's how I was able to see when the letters were sent. Q. So you were relying on the information
that was transferred from the Maryland Corporation into the plaintiff's system? A. Correct. THE COURT: Were the letters actually
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
boarded? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: MR. ZAKARIAN: Yes. The actual letter? Yes. Your Honor, for the
record, I'm showing Mr. Weidner a document that I would like to approach and present to the witness. MR. WEIDNER: And for the record, just to
move on, I'm going to object to this document. This has a date on here of 8/2/2007. This is
not a business record of this plaintiff, as her testimony indicated, so I'm objecting to this. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, subject to
Mr. Weidner's objection -THE COURT: Overruled. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ZAKARIAN:
May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, I'm handing you a document Yes.
and I'd ask that you review it, and perhaps provide it to the Court for the Court to review it if the Court desires, and tell me if you recognize that
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
document? A. Yes, I do recognize this document. It is
kept within our imaging system.
It is the demand
letter that was sent to the borrower on August 2nd, 2007 advising of the default and the amount needed to cure the default. And, also,
advising them if the default is not cured within 30 days, we would accelerate or move to foreclosure. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, I'm objecting
to her testimony because she just said that it was a letter that was sent, but she doesn't have any knowledge of that. MR. ZAKARIAN: If I may explore, Your
Honor, subject to Mr. Weidner's objection? THE COURT: (Nods head.) MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. This particular letter, how did the Thank you.
plaintiff come into possession of this letter, or a copy of it? A. This document was boarded into our system
when the loan servicing was transferred to us. Q. At the top of this particular letter,
which you said is dated August 2nd, 2007, it says in the upper right-hand corner, American Home
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mortgage Servicing, what entity is that entity? A. Q. This entity is the Maryland Corporation. Is that Maryland Corporation the
corporation you referred to as the original and prior servicer? A. Q. Correct. Was this particular August 2nd, 2007 an
image of a letter that was received by the plaintiff as part of the boarding process when they acquired the Maryland Corporation? A. Q. Yes, it was. And did you testify prior that your
review of the collection notes indicated that this particular letter had been sent out? A. Q. Yes, it did. So your testimony is based in part on
your view of this image document, which is part of the business records? A. Q. Correct. And it's always reflected on the
collection notes that it was sent out? A. Q. Correct. Can you tell from reviewing that document
how this letter was sent to Ms. Lucy Bednarek? A. This letter was sent by first-class mail as
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it says on the letter, and there's also an image of the certified mail receipt that shows that it was sent certified mail as well. Q. Was there any indication in the
plaintiff's business records collection system that this letter was not received? A. Q. No, there's no indication. And, in fact, you testified earlier, I
believe, that in some of the business letters there were actually signed green cards that were imaged? A. Q. Yes. And were those also notated in the
collection notes? A. Yes. MR. ZAKARIAN: Subject to Mr. Weidner's
voir dire on this exhibit, Your Honor? VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. WEIDNER: Q. Was this a letter sent out by American
Home Mortgage Servicing, a Delaware Corporation? A. Q. Not the Delaware Corporation, no. Okay. MR. WEIDNER: So, Your Honor, I object to This was
the introduction of this document.
not sent out -- she has no personal knowledge

45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
about it.
It's hearsay. I'm going to overrule the
THE COURT: objection.
She says it's within their course
of business of when they acquired the records from the Maryland Company. MR. WEIDNER: MR. ZAKARIAN: Thank you. Subject to your ruling, I
would like to offer that as an exhibit because it has not previously been filed with the Court and move it into evidence. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Weidner? No, Your Honor. Received as Plaintiff's 1.
(Plaintiff's 1 was received into evidence.) FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, did you have an opportunity
to review the plaintiff's business records kept concerning Ms. Bendarak's loan with an eye towards looking at what type of loss mitigation may have occurred during the life of the loan? A. Q. Yes. And can you describe your findings from
your review of those business records?

46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A.
In my review there were several attempts to
work on some type of a modification, HAMP modification, forbearance plan, repayment plans. Unfortunately, the attempts were unsuccessful. Q. Can you tell me from your review of the
plaintiff's business records on this particular loan who the individual was that was being dealt with on behalf of Lucy Bednarek with regard to these loss mitigation attempts? A. Bednarek. Q. A. Q. Bednarek, the same last name? Yes. Okay. In this case as you looked at the Yes, it was her son. His name is Ronald
business records of the plaintiff, did you find an image copy of the note? A. Q. Yes, I did. And is that part of the business records
for the plaintiff? A. Q. Yes, it is. Do you know from your review how many
signatories were on that note? A. Q. A. Just one, just Lucy's. Just Lucy Bednarek, the defendant? Correct.
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 note.
Q.
Did you also have an opportunity to see
if there were any endorsements made on the note? A. Yes, there's a blank endorsement on the
Q.
And do you know who executed that blank
endorsement? A. Lynch. Q. A. Q. And do you know Judy Lynch? I don't know her personally. Can you tell from the endorsement -Not off the top of my head, no -- Judy
reviewing the endorsement for which company Jody Lynch was signing on behalf of? MR. WEIDNER: THE WITNESS: MR. ZAKARIAN: Objection, Your Honor. American Brokers Conduit. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I'm just asking her to read what's on the document. She's not testifying whether that's Just reading it. You asked her to testify That's not -- foundation.
accurate or not. MR. WEIDNER: who she works for. THE COURT: says.
The document says what it
She doesn't know these people anyway
and she said that, so go ahead. MR. ZAKARIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is? A. Q.
THE COURT:
And you can't read the
signature anyway, so it's just typed or stamped -- it's a stamp with a squiggle. MR. ZAKARIAN: And, Your Honor, you're
telling us from the original document? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor.
Do you know who American Brokers Conduit
The original lender. And do you have any knowledge of that
particular company? A. Q. No, just what's on the document. Do you know if loans were serviced by the
Maryland Corporation coming from American Brokers Conduit? A. Yes, the was loan servicing by -MR. WEIDNER: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. A. How would you know that information? Because we require the American Home Objection. Foundation.
Mortgage, a Maryland Corporation loans -- a good portion of those loans were originated with American Brokers Conduit, and as such, American Home Mortgage,
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the Maryland Corporation serviced those loans, which were transferred to us, which we now service. Q. So is that the information based on a
review of plaintiff's business records, including the business records that were boarded into the plaintiff in July of 2008? A. Q. Yes. Other than that, you don't have any
independent personal knowledge about that company? A. Q. Correct. Did you have an opportunity to look at
plaintiff's business records and see if there was also an image copy of the mortgage? A. Q. Yes. And was that the same lender, American
Brokers Conduit? A. Q. Yes. And at some point in time did the
plaintiff request the physical documents from the records custodian for this particular matter? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. And do you know when that was? That was in April of 2009. And you had testified earlier that those
documents were then sent to the law firm handling

50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the foreclosure? A. Correct. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, based on
Ms. Kearse's testimony and the Court's possession of the original note and mortgage, I would move those into evidence as well. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Honor. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: I'm sorry? The original document? I'm going to object, Your
The original -Yes, Your Honor. And I'm going to object, They're two separate
MR. ZAKARIAN: MR. WEIDNER:
Your Honor, to both.
documents that have to come in, and I'm going to object to both of them. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: What's your objection? Hearsay. Overruled. The Court will
receive the original note and original mortgage which are contained within the court file. MR. WEIDNER: I'm going to object, then, Even if it
on authentication on the note.
comes in, the witness has to get an authentic

51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
document. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, the note
itself is authenticated by Florida Statute, and it is an original document, and because it's endorsed in blank, that it's within plaintiff's possession, who then deposited it with the Court, it is also, basically, bare paper. It's a blank check. I'm going to accept it as it
THE COURT:
is, staples in the middle and everything. MR. ZAKARIAN: Sorry, Your Honor. If
there are staples in the middle, that's my fault. MR. WEIDNER: And I'm going to object to
the statement that they're, bare paper. You're defining a legal term that doesn't -that's not the case of this document. nonnegotiable. MR. ZAKARIAN: is. THE COURT: along. MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, did you have an opportunity
It's
Well, I believe that it
Okay.
Well, let's move
52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to review the plaintiff's business records regarding this particular loan as it relates to the amounts that are currently due and owing? A. Q. Yes, I have. Were you able to take those figures and
look at those figures in relation to a proposed judgment in this case? A. Yes, I did. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, I would like
to approach the witness to show the witness a proposed judgment. Mr. Weidner, would you
like to see a copy of that? THE COURT: Do you anticipate this
witness going -- are you -- do you plan on questioning this witness as far as the owner and holder from American Home Mortgage Servicing -- well, from -- no, I'm sorry -under the blank endorsement of American Brokers Conduit? MR. ZAKARIAN: Am I questioning her as to
how American Brokers Conduit got the loan, no, I'm not. THE COURT: Or from American -- no -- not
how they got it -MR. ZAKARIAN: Okay.

800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
-- how it ended up being
American Brokers Conduit to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the owner and holder. MR. ZAKARIAN: Okay. I can certainly go
into that, Your Honor. THE COURT: issue. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Sure. That to me is the biggest
As you can see I've got lots
of other folks here -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Right.
That to me is the biggest
issue because I don't see anything in the court file that shows how, other than a blank endorsement, and going under McLean versus JP Morgan Chase in the motion for final summary judgment it says that American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. is the owner and holder. I
don't know how they got to be the owner and holder and that's the main issue for me in this aspect of it. MR. ZAKARIAN: Okay. Your Honor,
earlier, I believe Ms. Kearse -- and some of the testimony we relied on -- Ms. Kearse
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
followed the loan from the origination on May 31st, 2005. She testified it directly got
deposited the next day into the trust for the investor. And at that point, the investor had
the servicing agents acting on their behalf. Now, what I will do, is I will put into evidence, or at least offer testimony, Your Honor, as to relationship and the legal authority and power of the plaintiff to prosecute the foreclosure forward. MR. WEIDNER: And I'm going to object to He mischaracterized
what he just testified. her testimony. THE COURT:
He did -- I understand. Thank you, Your Honor. The witness testified that
Deutsche Bank and BB&T were never owners. That's in conflict to what they pled. THE COURT: custodian -MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: Right. -- the investor was Deutsche Yes, BB&T was the
Bank and they've just been the servicer all along. So I don't know how they become from
servicer -- unless that's what you've got

55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
there -- the owner and holder.
They may be
the holder, but I don't know how they became the owner. MR. ZAKARIAN: Right. And, actually,
Your Honor, I think that that is correct, that they are the holder for purposes of foreclosure. They have a limited power of
attorney which operates from Deutsche Bank to them to give them exclusive rights to be able to go ahead and proceed with the foreclosure. So they are the holder, especially, with the actual note in the court file, blank endorsement. It's key -- they have the
ability to foreclose at that point. THE COURT: holder. I'm not concerned about the
I'm concerned about the owner. And we're not trying by
MR. WEIDNER:
consent, Your Honor. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Right.
I understand. And, Your Honor, she's
MR. ZAKARIAN:
testified that the actual owner is the investor, Deutsche Bank, and they have been since June 1st, 2005. So that part of the
pleading that says, owner, is improper, but

56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
they are the holder.
And under 673.3011, they
are allowed as the holder with the rights to enforce the note to do so. THE COURT: Okay. You can continue.
Ms. Kearse, in this particular case you
said that the plaintiff was the -- is the servicer for the loan? A. Q. Correct. And they received those servicing rights
by acquiring the Maryland Corporation that was the original servicer for Deutsche Bank? A. Q. Correct. Is there a relationship between Deutsche
Bank and the plaintiff with regard to servicing? MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: that question? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead and answer it and Objection. Foundation.
Do you know the answer to
then we'll see how do you know. THE WITNESS: We are the servicer of the
loan through the pooling and servicing agreement, American Home Mortgage Servicing.
57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
When we purchased the Maryland Corporation, we obtained those servicing rights, sub-servicing rights and everything by way of the servicing agreement. MR. WEIDNER: her testimony. And I'm going to object to
She's testified to the pooling
servicing agreement, an agreement that hasn't been entered unless she wants to enter it, then there's no evidence of it. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Is your pooling servicing agreement How did you
testimony, what is that based upon? get that information? A.
That information is kept in our loan
servicing platform, the MSP database lets us know the investor. We have an investor number that we identify Once I
each loan that is within that particular pool.
see that this loan is within that particular pool, there's a system within the business servicing system that will actually identify that actual loan and that agreement. Q. A. Q. And have you done that in this case? Yes, I have. And are you aware of any other documents
that provide the ability of the plaintiff to

58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
proceed in a foreclosure for this particular loan? A. Yes, we have a power of attorney. MR. WEIDNER: entered. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, I would like I Objection. Also, not
to approach the witness with a document.
only have one copy, so I will provide it to Mr. Weidner first. MR. WEIDNER: And to the extent that I've
just been handed a copy of a document, Your Honor, I'm going to object to it as being inadmissible. THE COURT: What is it? It's a limited power of
MR. ZAKARIAN:
attorney, Your Honor, between Deutsche Bank and the plaintiff. MR. WEIDNER: Deutsche Bank hasn't been
identified as any party having anything to do with this case. That's a copy of a document.
He wants to rely on it, he needs an original and a recorded document. original. That's not an It's
It's not recorded.
inadmissible. MR. ZAKARIAN: Well, I can show the
witness, Your Honor, if I need to, a document

59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to refresh her recollection. already seen the document. THE COURT:
Counsel has
You mean he just saw it? Yes, he did. And I'd like
MR. ZAKARIAN:
to show it to the witness to elicit testimony subject to your ruling, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. You can show it to
her and see where we go with it. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, to the extent
that this is a power of attorney executed by somebody who's not corporate owned, you can show her a document, but it's got no admissibility. THE COURT: it. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, I'm handing you a document, We'll see where we go with
tell me if you recognize that document? A. Yes, this document is kept within our
business records, the imaging system. Q. A. Q. What is it? It's a limited power of attorney. And you saw that within the imaging
system of the plaintiff? A. Correct.

60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q. attorney? A. Q.
And what is that date of that power of
This is dated July 21st, 2009. Can you tell what entities are signing
that document? A. This is between Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company and American Home Mortgage Servicing to act as attorney in power for Deutsche. Q. Is that American Home Mortgage Servicing
entity the Delaware Corporation? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes, it is. And how do you know that? Because it states it in the documents. In the limited powers of attorney? Correct. Now, have there been other limited powers
of attorney in the system that predated this particular powers of attorney? A. Yes -MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.
What's the foundation for that, and she's testifying about documents? THE COURT: the question. THE WITNESS: What was the question
800-275-7991
Overruled.
You can answer
ORANGE LEGAL
61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
again? THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Are there any other -- are there prior Are there others?
powers of attorney that predate that particular powers of attorney that you are reviewing? A. Q. Yes, there are. And did those powers of attorney give the
ability to the plaintiff to prosecute the foreclosure, as well as service the loan for the this case? A. Yes -MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. A. And how do you know that? In my review of the records, I've seen prior Objection, Your Honor. Sustained.
powers of attorney. MR. WEIDNER: Object, Your Honor, again.
That's best evidence. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Now, Ms. Kearse, you indicated that Sustained.
Deutsche Bank is the investor? A. Correct.

62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
And it is your review and findings from
plaintiff's business records that the plaintiff in this case is a current servicer for the loan? A. Q. Correct. And this particular case was filed on
September 27th, 2007, were you aware of that? A. Q. Yes. At that time was Deutsche Bank still the
owner of the note and mortgage? A. Yes -MR. WEIDNER: Foundation. MR. ZAKARIAN: I believe she's testified Objection, Your Honor.
previously on multiple occasions that her information comes from her review of plaintiff's business records and that Deutsche Bank has been the investor from the beginning. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Now, you testified earlier that the Overruled.
servicing rights for this particular loan started out with AHMSI, the Delaware Corporation? A. Q. The Maryland Corporation. Maryland Corporation, thank you. And so
at that time, did that Maryland Corporation have

63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the ability to proceed with the foreclosure? A. Q. Yes. And were those rights then purchased and
required by the Delaware Corporation? A. Q. Yes. And did that occur during the course of
this particular lawsuit? A. Yes. THE COURT: it. I guess I have trouble with
I know Mr. Weidner's put a whole bunch of
objections in there, but my trouble is it's almost hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay without producing any of the actual documents along the way. She can say all these things
are boarded onto the system, but that's -- I'm getting uncomfortable with everything is boarded on there, and I'm not seeing anything. She's just sitting up here saying, yes, yes, yes, it's all boarded on the system. It's a
lot of things to rely upon, especially, since 2000 -- from 2005 to, then, the next layer is 2007. MR. ZAKARIAN: Honor. Yes, I understand, Your
Of course, in the Glare (ph) decision
that was issue by the 4th DCA, it specifically

64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
addresses this issue and they even amended their opinion to address the issue of servicers testifying about business records from prior servicers. And in that case they
said it was perfectly appropriate for a representative, especially with the kind of in-depth knowledge that she has to do that. THE COURT: Yes, I'm not so concerned
with the -- or let me distinguish it -talking about payment history, but talking about, yes, that Deutsche Bank has been the investor all along. It's the owner part of it
to me that I'm the most concerned with in this particular case. MR. ZAKARIAN: I understand, Your Honor.
And, of course, as you've probably heard multiple times in the past, the fact that the plaintiff regardless of what the prior history is would be able to come to the Court, as the plaintiff has done here, with the original note and mortgage and a blank endorsement, even under 673.3011, plaintiff could be in wrongful possession of the note and still foreclose as long as they were able to pull apart and indemnify the defendant against
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
anybody coming behind them, which Ms. Kearse will testify, she is willing to do on behalf of the plaintiff. MR. WEIDNER: And this is where I'm going We are not trying They pled
to object is wrong there.
this servicer dynamic by consent.
from the beginning that they owned and they hold it. And, now, they've just interjected
all these different facts and parties; Deutsche Bank and BB&T, and a completely different set of facts, and a completely different set of documents that are not part of this case. Moreover, this witness can't
provide any testimony about the most important facts, who owned it, who held it at the time the lawsuit was filed. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, in this
particular case the pleadings, owner and holder, is for the purpose of the foreclosure. Ms. Kearse has testified to the legal basis through both the PSA and the limited powers of attorney that are contained within the business records to give the plaintiff the ability legally to move forward in the case. The other testimony that she is
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
providing, which is Deutsche Bank as the investor, providing the exact factual circumstances between the change from the Maryland Corporation to the Delaware Corporation, those are factual testimony that she has filled in for the record. But legally
as the owner and holder, they are entitled -the plaintiff is entitled to move forward with the foreclosure, and, especially, based on the holding of the actual documents and filing them with the court. And Ms. Kearse has
testified that they've been with the records custodian prior to the foreclosure for the entire time until they came to the court. Those are factual elements that can stand for the foreclosure. MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: That's hearsay. Yes, I guess, here's what
we're going to do, I'm going to take a break from this trial for a second, because I need to get to some others, and then I've got a whole afternoon calendar. We're going to take a recess from this case. So you can leave the witness stand.
Remember you're still under oath, and I'll

67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
take you back up in a little bit. (A recess was taken from 2:28 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.) THE COURT: You guys ready? I am, Your Honor. Thank you. So
MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT:
Okay.
Ms. Kearse, please remember that you're still under oath, all right. Thank you, so you may continue. MR. ZAKARIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
One of the things that I wanted to present some testimony and I was remis at, was I wanted to confirm with the Court that there was -- what appears to be a blank assignment that was attached to the note. I want to make
sure that was filed before I assumed that. THE COURT: To the originals? Yes.
MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: mortgage.
I have a 16-page original
I have a note, pages 1 through 3,
and there is something -MR. ZAKARIAN: talking about -THE COURT: -- that is not titled -- oh, I think that's what I'm
it says at the top, assignment of mortgage

68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
without covenants. MR. ZAKARIAN: That's the document I'm I want to make
talking about, Your Honor.
sure that there wasn't any discrepancy or confusion on the record that as part of our submission of the note it included those pages. Now, I'm ready and willing to at least get some testimony from Ms. Kearse on that particular document subject to Mr. Weidner's expected objections. THE COURT: Well, how -- well, let me How would Ms. Kearse be
just ask you this:
able to testify about a document that really has a lot of blanks in it from May 31st -that's dated May 31st, 2005, again, with just a squiggle mark on it by some stamp that says, Jody Lynch, American Brokers Conduit, but it is blank as to who is the assignee. How would
Ms. Kearse be able to testify as to where it moved from? MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, the proffered I agree with I would also
testimony would be very limited. you, and it would be as follows:
in addition to her testimony on the note and

69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mortgage, I would have her testimony be the following: That that document was part of the
documents that the plaintiff received from the records custodian, BB&T, and then sent it to my office. That really is the scope. That's
all she can testify to.
She can't testify to
anything else, but I wanted to make sure that was a part of our evidence, exhibits and on the record. THE COURT: So I appreciate that, because
I think that's probably all she can testify. She got this with the other group of originals. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Yes.
But I still don't see how
that gets you to standing from McLean versus JP Morgan Chase? MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor. I understand your concern,
And I understood your concern
since the hearing opened, so I'm protecting the record for what I'm sure you know I'm going to file tomorrow. THE COURT: wisdom. MR. WEIDNER: I love the fact that he's
800-275-7991
I love the 2nd DCA's infinite
ORANGE LEGAL
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
conceding he won. I want to -- well, I want to object to this document -THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: have a mortgage. Well, which document? Well, we have a note. We have now, whatever We
counsel wants to title this. MR. ZAKARIAN: with the Court -THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: So -When we're going to be It's untitled. I agreed
talking about this document, I think it should be marked and I think it should be noted that it's separate and distinct. THE COURT: There's an original one.
There's an original two-page, eight-and-a-half by 14, something that's untitled, that has a lot, as I've said, has a lot of blanks in it. It does appear to be some kind of -- it has some stamp on it that says, legal REC intervening assignment with a bar code on the top. I don't know if that's the bar code from I really don't
where the form was purchased. know.
I don't think this witness can testify
other than the fact she got it with the packet

71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of other stuff. MR. ZAKARIAN: You see on the second page
it appears to be a notary block and signature for Jody Lynch on the same day of the closing that was executed in Pinellas County; is that the second page of yours? THE COURT: The second page of my
original document -- and if you compare the document numbers at the bottom of the page, they are not sequential numbers, and they are not the same number -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: -Yes -but they have different
form names to it, so I don't know that page 2 goes with page 1. And the page 2, it does
appear to be a notary attestation from a Jody -- personally came Jody Lynch of May 31st, 2005 is the date. It's interesting
it says that it is State of Florida, County of Pinellas, but the signature, which appears to be Michelle, G-a-r-g-i-u-t-o, is a notary public from the State of New York, who's commission expires October 18th, 2008. So it has some kind of section blank, block L, block 13 in Pinellas County, but I
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
don't know how a notary in New York is notarizing a person's signature supposedly in Pinellas County, Florida. questions about -MR. ZAKARIAN: Right. About that page, I So there's a lot of
just wanted to get it into the record that it was a document that came with the original note and mortgage. means, actually. MR. WEIDNER: Well, it's a document. We I don't know what it
don't know whether it came with the originals -- may we approach because I want to take one look at it very quickly -THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Yes. -- because there was no --
I can't reveal from my record whether there was any notary there. But I'm going to object
that being -- even if they take the position that a note may be a negotiable instrument, it may be admissible, this document is not. not recorded. THE COURT: paper -MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: Correct. -- it's the -- let's call
800-275-7991
It's
You mean, these two pieces of
ORANGE LEGAL
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
this an alleged assignment. MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: To no one. To no one, right. And the Court may be
MR. ZAKARIAN:
correct, these two pieces of paper may not be related to each other -THE COURT: They may not be --- I just know that they
MR. ZAKARIAN:
came with the original note, and we did file them. THE COURT: I'll accept her proffered
testimony that they came with the rest of the originals, and the originals have been filed. But I don't -- I can't say what they are. don't -- I can't attest to their meaning, but -MR. ZAKARIAN: And I'm not proffering the I
meaning for argument at this time. THE COURT: Here's -- my question,
though, goes back to the original as to how do you get it under the McLean standard or the McLean versus JP Morgan Chase opinion, how do you get standing from this? MR. ZAKARIAN: In this particular case --
and I think we were talking about this during

74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the recess, Your Honor -- the original lawsuit was filed by AHMSI, the Maryland Corporation, clearly. And I think Ms. Kearse's testimony
establishes that the Delaware Corporation doesn't board the loan until a year later. Now, obviously under 1.260, we can't -even though there's a transfer of interest during the lawsuit, continuing in the original name of the original plaintiff, so that's not an issue. Your concern is whether the
standing exists at the time of the filing of the lawsuit; is that right? THE COURT: Of owner and holder. Okay. Now, in this
MR. ZAKARIAN:
particular case, I do have the original complaint. I know the amended complaint was At that
filed June, I believe, 24th of 2008.
time, it's my understanding from Ms. Kearse's testimony that the Maryland Corporation still owned the loan. It was in the process of
being audited, but it had not been boarded by the Delaware Corporation. I believe that's
what she's testified to, and Your Honor can ask her if Your Honor is inquisitive about that.
75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. WEIDNER: record. owned it. MR. ZAKARIAN:
I want to correct the
Her testimony was that Deutsche Bank
Yes, I'm talking about the
servicing transfer, you're correct. MR. WEIDNER: MR. ZAKARIAN: Okay. Deutsche Bank's been the That's never
investor/owner since 2005. changed. MR. WEIDNER:
That's an important point,
and American Home Mortgage Servicing or whatever the entity has been the servicer? MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: of it. Yes, I agree.
I accept the servicing aspect
What I don't see any evidence here,
though, is -- I don't see any evidence anywhere in the file -- and I haven't really heard from the testimony, other than she's saying, yes, it was boarded -- is the investor, Deutsche Bank was the owner. blank endorsements. I see
I don't -- and I don't I
even know if they're blank endorsements.
see something that has blanks and there is a blank stamp on the original note from American Brokers Conduit, Jody Lynch, with a squiggly,
76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
not dated or anything else on the note, but I don't see anything that shows me that the owner -- I think the owner and holder is either American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., regardless if it was Maryland or Delaware or Deutsche Bank. So I'm troubled with who's the owner. I'm hearing it's Deutsche Bank. I don't see
anything about Deutsche Bank, and I don't think that reaches the level of McLean versus JP Morgan Chase. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor. I understand your concern,
One of the things that I wanted
to do is elicit a little bit more testimony about -- from Ms. Kearse. The proffered
testimony would be that as far as the Deutsche Bank entity is concerned and Ms. Kearse's knowledge of how Deutsche Bank is the original investor and the owner and holder one day after the closing would come in part from the business records, which you've heard, but also she has divulged to me testimony, which we have proffered, which we agree is part of her research. She was directed from the business
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
records to go to the SCC Website, which houses the public filing of the PSA, which is a public document for the SCC. She then will
confirm her testimony will be that the PSA contains, I believe -- and pending our exhibits -- that shows that this particular loan under the old loan number was dumped into that particular trust. And as a matter of
public record, by the time the trust closed on June, I believe, 27th, 2005, Deutsche Bank was the owner at that time, AHMSI was the servicer at that time with those rights in that particular document. So that's in addition to
just showing it in the business records. THE COURT: So the affidavit from Robert
Hardman, vice president of who knows what, of an undated affidavit that's filed in the court file, filed in the court file on June 11th, 2008, an affidavit in support of motion for final summary judgment says that American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. is the owner and holder, and that appears to be totally contrary to what Ms. Kearse would then be testifying to. MR. ZAKARIAN: I don't believe that it's
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
totally contrary inasmuch as I think that in the legal pleading situation they're saying for the purpose of foreclosure, they were the attorneys, in fact, for the investor, which they were. Now, at the time of affidavit, and for the purposes of this proceeding would be hearsay, which is why we have our live witness here. That affidavit would have been filed by
somebody with, I think, the Maryland Company, because that was prior to the boarding by the Delaware Corporation. So I can't speak to who
that person is, and we're not relying on that affidavit. Not only that, interestingly
enough, there was a judgment in this case in 2008 issued by the Court before it was vacated. THE COURT: Well, and really, I correct
myself in that that was before the amended complaint. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor.
The amended complaint was
filed June 24th, 2008, which was after that -MR. ZAKARIAN: Yes, because I believe the
judgment was vacated -- it was entered by the

79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Court no weight, then it was vacated because I believe Ms. Bednarek was now appearing with counsel and contesting it, which is fine. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, the point that
I want to make is that from the time that we filed this lawsuit going back into 2010, we asked for records of exactly what counsel just described; specifically, servicing records, any records of transfer, any records of receipt -- I've request admissions for interrogatories and requests for production that we'll get into. None of it was provided.
None of it's on the exhibit list, and we are not trying a servicer case here. We are
trying an owner and holder case, as the Court recognizes, as McLean recognizes, as Riggs -They're two separate kind of distinct cases. In this case, American Home Mortgage
Servicing pled they owned and they hold it. Not once, but twice. First with the amended
complaint, that it was American Home Mortgage Servicing, the Maryland Corporation. When
they filed the lawsuit, they said they owned it. Counsel just asserted his witness is
going to say that Deutsche Bank owns it.

80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. ZAKARIAN:
I've been always
consistent, Your Honor, that Deutsche Bank has been the investor all along. But Ms. Kearse
testified that pursuant to the PSA terms and powers of attorney, both Delaware and Maryland AHMSI Corporations had the legal right to own and hold the note for the purpose of foreclosure, which is exactly what they did. MR. WEIDNER: pleadings. Outside of the scope of the
No evidence. No, it is within the
MR. ZAKARIAN: pleadings.
Moreover -Well, let's look at your
THE COURT: complaint. complaint --
Your complaint -- the amended
Yes, Your Honor.
-- filed on June 24th, 2008,
has in here that -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Paragraph five, I believe.
Well, it says, plaintiff owns
and holds the note and subject mortgage, which I don't think they do. I think supposedly
upon the amended complaint, according to her testimony, Deutsche Bank was the owner. MR. ZAKARIAN: They were the owner, I
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
think, that's accurate.
I believe in this
case the plaintiff has always been the holder as servicer, as attorney in fact, with the ability to foreclose. So I think that's -- I
think we're in agreement on that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't think we are, but the
other aspect that's a little troubling is up in your caption you only talk about MERS in here. I don't see any assignments in here as That's why I like on the --
MERS as nominee.
I think it's improper pleading for the complaint to have all this stuff in the caption as opposed to in the actual pleading. So under paragraph three, it says copies of the note by virtue of substantial copy of note information and mortgage are attached as Exhibits A and B. Plaintiff holds the
mortgage by virtue of the assignment, which is Exhibit C. Let's look at Exhibit C. The assignment is dated
MR. ZAKARIAN:
March 30th, 2006 as Exhibit C to the complaint and it's from American Brokers Conduit, assignee, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. I assume at that point that would be the
Delaware Corporation -- the Maryland

82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Corporation.
That is recorded as a matter of
public record, and it was executed March 30th of '06. This complaint wasn't even filed
until September of 2007. So according to this public record document, this assignment of mortgage would show the transfer from American Brokers Conduit into the plaintiff that filed this lawsuit a year -- over a year before this lawsuit was even filed. And that's a public
record, which we could ask the Court to take judicial notice of. THE COURT: I don't have a copy -I don't have a certified
MR. ZAKARIAN:
copy of this assignment, but it's part of and filed with the Pinellas County Clerk's Office. MR. WEIDNER: I'm going to object to
that, and I'm going to object to all this conversation about servicer. we're trying. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: This is not what
We're trying as owner. I understand. And it is objectionable
that he's testifying, essentially, to facts which are not in conformity with what has been pled, nor in the evidence which has been
83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
presented. THE COURT: I mean, the evidence
presented from this witness is Deutsche Bank is the owner, but now I've got here an assignment of mortgage, which if it's recorded, I don't know that -- but this says that American Brokers Conduit gave it to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., not as the servicer, this looks like they're now the owner. But that's not what the witness'
testimony is. MR. ZAKARIAN: It is consistent because
for the purpose of being the attorney of fact for Deutsche, the investor, this particular assignment is being executed on March 30th of '06, into, I believe it's the Maryland Corporation, which was -THE COURT: telling me. But that's all what you're
There's no evidence of that.
And, in fact, that is contrary of what your own witness has just said. MR. ZAKARIAN: Well, I don't think it's She's testified who the
contrary, Your Honor.
Maryland Corporation was, who the Delaware was, when the transferred was made.
The fact
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that the Maryland Corporation actually filed the lawsuit in '07 when it started -MR. WEIDNER: that. I'm objecting to all of It's not based on
It should be struck.
first-hand knowledge. comes down to.
This is what this all
She's here testifying
competently as an agent of the Delaware Corporation. Everything my colleague here is
has asserted, relates to a Maryland Corporation. MR. ZAKARIAN: Which has to do with the
business records Ms. Kearse already testified to that she is relying on, plus the public documents that are existing in the public records in this very county, actually, which Mr. Weidner was aware from the beginning of this case. MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: I was not. Well, let's go forward with
the witness testimony and move on because we're soon coming to a close, so that we give the 2nd DCA appropriate transcript of review. MR. ZAKARIAN: Honor. I appreciate that, Your
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, you understand you're still
under oath? A. Q. Yes. Earlier there was testimony from you
about relying on the PSA for Deutsche Bank in this case, do you recall that? A. Yes. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: expression, PSA. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: I don't know what PSA is. It's a pooling and The what, PSA? I'm going to object to the
servicing agreement. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you. I'm going to object to
testimony regarding this pooling and servicing agreement. Best evidence is that she would It should
give me what they're referring to.
also be noted that I've been asking for that for two years now. THE COURT: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Ms. Kearse, the pooling and servicing
That would be sustained.
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
agreement that you're referring to, do you know which pooling and servicing agreement you're talking about? MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: the question. THE WITNESS: Yes, the pooling -- the Objection. Overruled. You can answer
actual title of this one is -THE COURT: Before you go there, how do
you know this information? THE WITNESS: records -THE COURT: business records? THE WITNESS: Correct. This particular Were they part of the It's in our business
loan has an investor number on it, and using that investor number is how I determine who, like the long title I guess I should say, the correct name of the investor is. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: And is that Deutsche Bank? Yes. The actual investor
on this is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as investor trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-2.
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. When you looked in the business records
to see that information, what did you do to confirm that? A. I took the trust number and when into the
secretary of state's website to -MR. WEIDNER: THE WITNESS: documents. BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. Where was it? Was it housed in the Objection. -- actually review the
secretary of state from the U.S. Government or -A. Yes -- no, for the U.S. Government, the SCC. MR. WEIDNER: of this. I'm going to object to all
I don't know what any of this means.
I don't know what record she's referring to. She's talking about documents that might be somewhere. THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the
objection and let me maybe consider it for the weight. Go ahead. Yes, I went to SCC Website
THE WITNESS:
to pull the actual pooling and servicing agreement.
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q. And how did you make a determination once
you found that agreement on the SCC Website whether this particular loan was part of that pooling and servicing agreement? A. Using the old loan number from American Home
Mortgage, the Maryland Company, using that loan number, you're able to pull the loan up within the mortgage loan schedule on the website. Q. And was Ms. Bendarak's loan in that
particular loan schedule? A. Q. Yes, it was. So based on the business records that the
plaintiff has and in your review of the SCC Website filing, which is a public record, the pooling and servicing agreement, you were able to determine that Deutsche Bank was the investor? A. Correct. MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor. Basis? Foundation. Hearsay.
Those are not documents in the courtroom. I've been asking for them for two years. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Your Honor --
Well, I've already sustained

800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the objection that was earlier for the best evidence aspect of it. And so it's -- I would
sustain it again and just the testimony about some Website somewhere, it's just hearsay. MR. ZAKARIAN: And we would also -THE COURT: Because I think you're I understand, Your Honor.
relying on it for truth of the matter to serve it, right? MR. ZAKARIAN: No, I'm relying on it for
the basis for her testimony, and her -THE COURT: Which you want her to testify
truthfully as to what she's testifying on this owner issue, right? MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Right.
So I think that is the truth
of the matter asserted. MR. ZAKARIAN: Well, in this case it's In other
the foundation for her testimony.
words, the question was, how do you know that Deutsche Bank is the investor for this specific loan, and her testimony was, I looked at our business records, and then I confirmed it by the mortgage schedule that's attached to the actual PSA that was filed with the SCC.
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
That's her testimony.
Your Honor can take it
for whatever weight, if at all, Your Honor wants to give it. But it was to show her
foundation for her knowledge. THE COURT: I'm sustaining the objection of Mr. Weidner has asked a while back for the best evidence, and I'm always sustaining it on that basis. MR. ZAKARIAN: Okay, Your Honor.
Now, in this particular case, Your Honor, we could proceed with payment history or judgment figures, but I think we're at a point where knowing what your ruling is going to be anyway, we're at a point where we want to address the legal issues. THE COURT: appropriate. I think that would be
Did you want to go ahead and
address it any further? MR. ZAKARIAN: don't need to. Well, I -- Your Honor, I
We've put our evidence and our We have the original I think you know
witness into the record. note and mortgage on file. what our argument is. THE COURT: Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Weidner, anything further from you?

91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. WEIDNER:
Now that the plaintiff has
closed their case, Your Honor, I move for an involuntary dismissal. THE COURT: Well -We didn't close it. We're
MR. ZAKARIAN:
just waiting for the legal argument.
I mean,
I'll put on judgment figures, but I don't see the need at this point. THE COURT: Does the Court agree?
Well, the issue --- or maybe reserve --
The issue that I've been
saying all along that is of concern to me based on the court file is -- and from some of the early testimony -- is the owner and holder issue. MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: Right.
And so based on that aspect
of it, if we could get past that hurdle, we could sit here, continue on testimony for the rest of the payment history and all that. I
don't have so much concern about those aspects of it. I think that Ms. Kearse could -- I
think she has sufficiently testified as to the continuity of records and the boarding and the auditing process from American Home Mortgage
92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
from Maryland to Delaware. I have some issues because there was some stuff thrown in there and we really didn't get into cross-examination as far as the Maryland Corporation and the bankruptcy, and I'm not sure how all that pertains to it. ruling specifically on that. So I'm not
But subject to
cross-examination, I think the bigger issue in this case and the one that I think the appellate court would speak their wisdom on is this owner and holder issue. So I'd rather if we could just give a final ruling on the owner and holder issue, if we can do that. And then if later on it gets
remanded, then address the payment history and those other issues. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor, before your
ruling, if I may, just so I can preserve for my client -THE COURT: Right. -- I would like a motion
MR. ZAKARIAN:
under 1.260C to amend the pleadings to conform the evidence, which I understand that is over Mr. Weidner's objection, and I will note that the rule gives the Court the discretion, even
93
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
over objection, to make that amendment. Obviously, we would amend out the owner language and simply go with the holder language, which I think is consistent with Ms. Kearse's testimony. THE COURT: But I think that McLean
requires you to be the owner and holder and that's at summary judgment, here we are at trial. MR. ZAKARIAN: Right. And I respectfully
disagree with the Court that 673.3011 requires both ownership and holder. I believe the
holder can enforce, understanding the Court's disagreement with my position. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So motion,
then, to amend, did you want to make any comment on that? MR. WEIDNER: Objection. Prejudicial.
We've been trying from the beginning, owned and hold, and they're not permitted to amend with prejudice to us in this. MR. ZAKARIAN: to the defendant. It would be no prejudice She's been living rent free
in the house for four-and-a-half years -MR. WEIDNER: Objection -800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 old.
MR. ZAKARIAN:
-- and it would definitely
prejudice the plaintiff, who has not been paid in four-and-a-half years and continues to be damaged every day during this foreclosure. MR. WEIDNER: Objection. The plaintiff
hasn't shown any connection to the servicer and other things. THE COURT: So as far as motion to amend,
here, a couple of hours into the trial, I'm going to deny that aspect of it. to then -MR. ZAKARIAN: We can take exception on So let's go
the record, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. I know that is kind of
MR. ZAKARIAN:
THE COURT:
That's okay.
So, then,
the -- let's go to the owner and holder issue. Anything else from you? MR. ZAKARIAN: No, Your Honor. I think
I've made my argument. THE COURT: MR. WEIDNER: Mr. Weidner? I'd like to cross-examine
the witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: I thought we were just doing
800-275-7991
ORANGE LEGAL
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
legal testimony -- I mean, argument -MR. ZAKARIAN: the impression of -MR. WEIDNER: Okay. The witness has That's what I was under
testified that she knows nothing about the Maryland Corporation that filed the lawsuit. The witness has also testified the investor and owner was Deutsche Bank and the custodian is BB&T. They cannot be the holder because
they didn't get transferred possession of it. BB&T was the holder of it. They have failed
to draw the link up between the note that was originated by American Brokers Conduit and the part of it that appears before the Court, that's argued since 2007, that they own and hold the note. And now for the first time at
trial, they come in and argue something entirely different, which is that we do not own and hold it. They specifically said
repeatedly someone else owns and holds it. The witness testified that it was sold to the investor and put into a pool in 2005, the custodian who is still BB&T, that the investor was Deutsche Bank and she quoted off her record there (indicating) specifically what
96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
investor owned it.
So every bit of evidence
that they have produced so far proves that they are not the owner and holder. It should also be noted with regard to these representations about pooling and servicing agreement and other documents, I have been requesting all of those documents, they denied -- I said specific any documents, correspondence, packets or whatever document whatsoever which shows or provides any evidence whatsoever that the subject note was transferred to any party. my request for production. none available. And so they've claimed in discovery that none is available. They've now referenced That's number 11 of The response was,
some things in here, still not in the court, still not in evidence. Moreover by the
witness' own testimony, there is nothing at all that this witness could testify about owner and holder that wouldn't be hearsay. They introduced no evidence that they are the holder and the best evidence is the note. THE COURT: Well, there's certainly
conflicting evidence as far as who's the

97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
owner.
Any response? Yes, Your Honor. I don't I
MR. ZAKARIAN:
believe that there's conflicting evidence. think that we've made it clear who the
investor is for the purpose of being factually accurate in front of the Court. While there
may have been a pleading issue with the word, owner, being included in paragraph five of the amended complaint, and I think I agree with that, I don't believe that we have to be anything more than a holder, and I think that we have been -- the plaintiff has been in both Maryland and Delaware throughout the course of this proceeding. The hearsay is overcome by the business records testimony provided by Ms. Kearse. And, I think, finally, that the standing issue is finally determined by the proffer of the original note and mortgage to the Court with a blank endorsement or at least what purports to be a blank endorsement. THE COURT: Here's where I differ with
you and here's why I am ruling the way that I do. Attached to the amended complaint is an
assignment of mortgage that is dated

98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
March 30th, 2006, which appears to give this mortgage as the owner, not in any power of attorney authority, from American Brokers Conduit to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. It supposedly was signed by a Robert
Hardman in the State of Texas, County of Dallas, and notarized by Trainer Jackson. Then the testimony that I hear is that Deutsche Bank is actually the owner -- I don't -- and then there's additionally, there's something, this two-page document that is titleless. Although, in reference to the
two pages on one page it says, this assignment is not subject to the requirements and refers to this piece of paper. It has language in
it, words in it that seem to be some kind of an assignment, which is blank and attached to a second piece of paper that has the word, assignment of mortgage. But here, again, is
suspect and not -- does not appear to be part of an actual assignment. It's different from
the assignment that's filed to the court file. So it's for that reason that I am dismissing the case at this point. So it's an
involuntary dismissal, because I can't -- I do

99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
not see either through the testimony or through the court file the owner and holder, and I think there's conflicting testimony at best as to who's actually the owner. So with that, Mr. Weidner, would you please prepare that dismissal and make sure that in the language that you tell me in your cover letter that Mr. Zakarian has seen the order entered -- final judgment, actually -and proof of the language. MR. WEIDNER: THE COURT: Anything else? Thank you.
No, Your Honor. All right.
Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded at 4:34 p.m.)
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, DANIELLE FERNANDEZ, Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, CERTIFY that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings, pages 4 through 99, and it is a true and accurate record of my stenographic notes. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, or employee, or attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. DATED this 3rd day of April, 2012.
_______________________________ Danielle Fernandez
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
1
WORD INDEX <$> $290,000 5:15 $630,000 5:13 <0> 06 82:3 83:16 07 84:2 07-009600-CI-11 1:2 <1> 1 3:13 45:13, 14 67:20 71:15 1.260 74:6 1.260C 92:22 1:29 1:15 10,44 3:6 100 3:8 10th 23:19 11 96:12 11th 27:19 77:19 1229 2:9 13 71:25 13th 14:7 23:22 14 70:17 16 3:5 16-page 67:19 16th 39:14 17th 39:14, 15 18th 71:23 1st 23:12, 14 24:14 27:18 29:6, 23 31:3 35:10 36:11, 12, 15, 22 40:9 55:24 <2> 2 3:13 41:11 71:14, 15 2:28 67:2 2000 63:21 2005 21:14 22:8 23:7, 12 25:20 26:3, 4, 7 54:2 55:24 63:21 68:16 71:18 75:8 77:10 95:22 2005-2 86:24 2006 81:21 98:1 2007 3:13 14:7, 14 36:11, 12, 15, 22 39:14, 14, 15, 15, 16 40:12 41:11 42:5, 24 43:7 62:6 63:22 82:4 95:15 2008 27:18, 19 28:25 29:6, 23 31:3 35:10, 14, 24 40:9 49:6 71:23 74:17 77:19 78:16, 23 80:17 2009 6:10 23:18, 20, 22 49:23 60:3 2010 79:6 2012 1:15 100:15 21st 60:3 22 1:15 24th 74:17 78:23 80:17 27th 62:6 77:10 28th 23:20 2nd 39:15, 16 42:5, 24 43:7 69:23 84:22 <3> 3 67:20 3:58 67:3 30 42:7 300 1:20 30th 81:21 82:2 83:15 98:1 31st 21:14 22:8 23:7 54:2 68:15, 16 71:18 33619 2:4 33701 1:21 33705 2:9 3rd 100:15 <4> 4 3:2 100:7 4:34 1:15 99:13 45 3:7, 13 4th 63:25 <5> 545 1:19 <6> 6 3:4 673.3011 56:1 64:22 93:11 6th 23:18 <7> 727 2:10 <8> 8 41:11 813 2:5 894-3159 2:10 8th 6:10 <9> 915-8660 2:5 9204 2:4 99 100:7 9th 23:17 <A> A.M 1:15 5:25 ability 55:14 57:25 61:9 63:1 65:24 81:4 able 20:3 25:19 29:2 35:4, 20 36:5 38:7 40:17, 19 52:5 55:9 64:19, 24 68:14, 20 88:8, 16 accelerate 42:8 acceleration 37:1, 6, 12, 21, 25 38:11 39:8 accept 29:14 51:9 73:11 75:14 acceptance 38:6 account 36:22 accounted 28:10 accounting 28:9 accurate 34:16 47:19 81:1 97:6 100:8 acquired 27:10, 15, 16 43:10 45:4 acquiring 56:12 acquisition 22:23 27:24 28:21 acquisitions 25:8 act 60:7 acting 54:5 action 11:7 100:13, 14 active 33:3 actively 33:3 activities 15:16 actual 18:19 27:18, 24 41:3 55:12, 22 57:20 63:13 66:10 81:13 86:8, 21 87:23 89:25 98:21 AD 14:7 addition 68:25 77:13 additionally 98:10 address 64:2 90:15, 18 92:15 addresses 64:1 administratively 6:9 admissibility 59:13 admissible 72:20 admissions 79:10 advances 34:13 advising 42:5, 7 affidavit 77:15, 17, 19 78:6, 9, 14 affirmative 7:8, 9 afternoon 4:6 66:22 agent 84:7 agents 54:5 agree 68:23 75:13 76:23 91:8 97:9 agreed 70:8 agreement 56:25 57:4, 7, 7, 11, 21 81:5 85:14, 19 86:1, 2 87:24 88:3, 5, 16 96:6 ahead 4:24 6:6 8:6 10:11 23:2 25:10 36:1 37:18 47:24 55:10 56:21 59:7 87:21 90:17 AHMSI 27:9, 13, 14 28:3 32:8 62:22 74:2 77:11 80:6 al 1:9 ALBERT 2:2 5:2 alleged 73:1 allow 8:5 22:19 allowed 56:2 amend 92:22 93:2, 16, 20 94:8 amended 64:1 74:16 78:19, 22 79:20 80:14, 23 97:9, 24 amendment 93:1 AMERICAN 1:5 4:22 5:21 6:21 7:15, 17, 20 8:10, 11, 18 9:11 10:15, 19, 23 11:2, 5, 11, 17, 23 12:2, 6, 10, 18 13:2, 9 14:1 23:21 25:22 27:6, 8, 10 42:25 44:19 47:15 48:9, 16, 22, 24, 25 49:15 52:16, 18, 21, 23 53:2, 2, 18 56:25 60:7, 9 68:18 75:11, 24 76:4 77:21 79:18, 21 81:22, 23 82:7 83:7, 8 86:23 88:6 91:25 95:13 98:3, 4 Ameriquest 27:13 amount 42:6 amounts 52:3 announce 4:24 answer 7:9 21:1, 2, 3 34:7 36:2 56:18, 21 60:23 86:5 anticipate 52:13 anybody 65:1 anyway 47:23 48:2 90:14 apart 64:25 appear 70:19 71:16 98:20 APPEARING 2:5, 10 79:2 appears 67:14 71:3, 20 77:22 95:14 98:1 appellate 92:10 applied 32:15 appraisals 32:23 appreciate 69:10 84:23 approach 13:14 41:7, 19 52:10 58:6 72:12 appropriate 64:5 84:22 90:17 appropriated 28:13 approval 11:6 April 23:17, 18, 19, 20 27:19 28:25 29:7 39:14 49:23 100:15 argue 4:18 95:17 argued 95:15 argument 73:18 90:23 91:6 94:21 95:1 Argumentive 12:21 arrearage 5:15 asked 7:1 33:22 34:6 47:20 79:7 90:6 asking 13:18 34:2 47:17 85:21 88:23 aspect 53:22 75:14 81:7 89:2 91:17 94:10 aspects 91:21 asserted 79:24 84:9 89:17 assets 8:22 assignee 68:19 81:23 assignment 67:14, 25 70:21 73:1 81:18, 20 82:6, 15 83:5, 15 97:25 98:13, 17, 19, 21, 22 assignments 81:9 assist 8:25 associated 10:23 assume 15:11 81:24 assumed 67:16 attached 67:15 81:16 89:24 97:24 98:17 attempts 36:16 46:1, 4, 9 attest 73:15 attestation 71:16 attorney 55:8 58:2, 15 59:10, 22 60:2, 8, 14, 17, 18 61:5, 6, 8, 18 65:22 80:5 81:3 83:13 98:3 100:10 attorneys 78:4 100:12 audit 34:18 35:1 audited 74:21 auditing 91:25 August 3:13 39:15 42:5, 24 43:7 authentic 50:25 authenticated 51:3
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
2
authentication 50:24 authority 54:9 98:3 authorized 100:5 automatic 31:15, 21 automatically 31:19 available 96:14, 16 Avenue 1:19 2:9 aware 57:24 62:6 84:16 <B> back 12:18, 22 24:3 28:14 33:2 34:25 38:5, 19 67:1 73:20 79:6 90:6 balance 28:8 balanced 29:10 balances 28:7, 10 29:17 Bank 19:8 23:13 24:5, 13 25:14 54:17, 23 55:8, 23 56:13, 16 58:15, 17 60:6 61:24 62:8, 17 64:11 65:10 66:1 75:2, 20 76:6, 8, 9, 17, 18 77:10 79:25 80:2, 24 83:3 85:6 86:20, 22 88:17 89:21 95:8, 24 98:9 bankruptcy 11:1, 6 92:5 Bank's 75:7 bar 70:21, 22 bare 51:7, 15 based 20:14 26:19 27:20 34:10 35:5 36:6, 9, 14 43:16 49:3 50:3 57:12 66:9 84:4 88:13 91:13, 17 basically 51:7 basis 7:5 10:7 12:14 16:9 17:13 20:22 21:2 65:20 88:20 89:11 90:8 BB 20:2, 5 23:13, 14, 17, 19, 22 25:17 30:18 54:17, 19 65:10 69:4 95:9, 11, 23 BEDNAREK 1:9 2:12 4:23 5:7 33:8 37:2 43:24 46:8, 11, 12, 24 79:2 beginning 4:15, 18 62:17 65:7 84:16 93:19 begins 31:2, 19 BEHALF 2:5, 10 5:7 7:20, 23 14:16 46:8 47:13 54:5 65:2 believe 30:5 44:9 51:19 53:24 62:13 74:17, 22 77:5, 10, 25 78:24 79:2 80:19 81:1 83:16 93:12 97:3, 10 Bendarak's 45:20 88:10 best 37:16 61:20 85:19 89:1 90:7 96:23 99:4 bigger 92:8 biggest 53:7, 13 bit 67:1 76:14 96:1 blank 6:11 47:3, 5 51:5, 8 52:18 53:15 55:12 64:21 67:14 68:19 71:24 75:21, 22, 24 97:20, 21 98:17 blanks 68:15 70:18 75:23 block 71:3, 25, 25 board 35:1 40:8 74:5 boarded 11:14, 20 27:17 28:15 29:4, 11, 23 31:9, 18 33:16 34:15 35:3, 10 40:17 41:1 42:21 49:5 63:15, 17, 19 74:21 75:19 boarding 29:8, 18 34:9 43:9 78:11 91:24 books 10:22 11:10, 16 14:20 borrower 17:25, 25 31:12 32:3, 20, 25 42:4 bottom 71:9 break 66:19 bring 22:16 Brokers 47:15 48:9, 16, 25 49:16 52:19, 21 53:2 68:18 75:25 81:22 82:7 83:7 95:13 98:3 brought 5:15 Building 1:19 bunch 63:10 business 9:10, 17, 21, 25 12:13 13:4, 7, 8 15:16 16:16, 20, 22, 24, 25 17:15, 19, 21 18:4 19:17 21:10, 24 22:2, 6, 13, 18, 24 23:5, 25 24:1, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22 25:13 26:8, 13, 15 27:1, 16, 21, 23 28:18 29:3, 16 30:1, 25 33:5, 6 35:5, 12 36:7, 25 38:9, 17, 22 39:4, 7, 23, 24 40:16 41:12 43:18 44:5, 9 45:4, 19, 25 46:6, 15, 18 49:4, 5, 12 52:1 57:19 59:20 62:2, 16 64:3 65:23 76:21, 25 77:14 84:12 86:11, 14 87:2 88:13 89:23 97:15 <C> calculate 31:19 34:10 calculated 34:14 calculating 28:13 calendar 4:4 66:22 call 4:20 5:17, 20 38:18 72:25 called 18:9 28:6 calls 18:1 31:11 CAMPBELL 1:15 Campbell. 5:25 capacity 7:10, 13 8:21 caption 81:8, 13 card 38:5 39:2 cards 38:19, 21 44:10 CASE 1:2 4:3, 20, 25 5:11 6:13 7:11 9:3 15:23 16:17, 21 18:24 19:6 20:3 23:23 26:21 30:23 33:4 35:7 38:25 40:8 46:14 51:17 52:7 56:7 57:22 58:19 61:11 62:3, 5 64:4, 14 65:13, 18, 24 66:24 73:24 74:15 78:15 79:14, 15, 18 81:2 84:17 85:7 89:18 90:10 91:2 92:9 98:24 cases 4:15 9:8 79:18 ceased 13:3, 6, 8 Central 2:9 certainly 10:9 53:5 96:24 CERTIFICATE 3:8 100:1 certified 38:5, 12, 13 44:2, 3 82:14 CERTIFY 100:5, 9 challenged 7:10 change 27:3, 5 66:3 changed 75:9 Charles 2:2 Chase 4:9 53:17 69:17 73:22 76:11 check 51:8 checked 29:10 checks 28:7, 10 29:17 35:1 CIRCUIT 1:1, 2 circumstances 66:3 claimed 96:15 clarification 6:25 clear 7:22 11:22, 22 12:1 17:15 22:16 24:16, 25 97:4 clearly 7:12 22:12 74:3 Clerk's 82:16 client 92:19 close 32:4 84:21 91:5 closed 21:14 23:10 77:9 91:2 closing 20:19 21:8, 13 22:7 30:12 71:4 76:20 co-counsel 5:3 code 70:21, 22 colleague 16:1 84:8 collection 18:1, 8 30:13 31:10, 11 37:8 40:1, 18 43:13, 21 44:5, 13 collections 18:8 comes 50:25 62:15 84:6 coming 48:16 65:1 84:21 comment 93:17 commission 71:23 communication 30:15 32:24 companies 24:19 27:12, 13 company 12:8, 17 25:3 26:17, 17, 19 27:7, 7 45:5 47:12 48:13 49:9 60:7 78:10 86:23 88:7 compare 71:8 compared 19:16 competently 84:7 complaint 74:16, 16 78:20, 22 79:21 80:14, 14, 15, 23 81:12, 21 82:3 97:9, 24 completely 65:10, 11 computer 12:5 15:6 18:5 conceding 70:1 concern 69:18, 19 74:10 76:12 91:12, 21 concerned 55:15, 16 64:8, 13 76:17 concerning 25:6 45:20 concluded 99:13 Conduit 47:15 48:9, 17, 25 49:16 52:19, 21 53:2 68:18 75:25 81:22 82:8 83:7 95:13 98:4 confirm 67:13 77:4 87:3 confirmed 89:23 conflict 54:18 conflicting 96:25 97:3 99:3 conform 92:22 conformity 82:24 confusion 68:5 connected 100:13 connection 94:6 consent 55:18 65:6 consider 87:20 consistent 80:2 83:12 93:4 constant 32:24 Consuegra 2:2 5:2 contain 6:11 27:24 contained 19:20 21:9 22:14, 24 36:7 38:22 50:21 65:22 contains 37:12 77:5 contested 8:25 9:3 contesting 79:3 continue 22:15 29:15 56:4 67:9 91:19 Continued 3:5 16:13 continues 94:3 continuing 24:21 74:8 continuity 91:24 contrary 77:23 78:1 83:20, 23 conversation 82:19
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
3
conversations 18:1 40:2 copies 37:12 81:14 copy 42:20 46:16 49:13 52:12 58:7, 10, 19 81:15 82:13, 15 corner 42:25 corporate 5:16 13:25 59:11 Corporation 8:12, 13, 15 10:17, 20, 24 11:2, 3, 12, 17, 18, 24, 24 12:2, 3, 3, 7, 11, 19 13:3, 3, 10 14:2, 15, 21, 23 15:17, 18 16:3 20:11 25:2, 2, 7, 7, 23, 24 26:9, 22 27:9, 9, 11, 15 28:3, 4, 22 29:4 30:6 33:12 40:22 43:2, 3, 4, 10 44:20, 21 48:16, 23 49:1 56:12 57:1 60:10 62:22, 23, 24, 25 63:4 66:4, 5 74:2, 4, 19, 22 78:12 79:22 81:25 82:1 83:17, 24 84:1, 8, 10 92:5 95:6 Corporations 80:6 Corporation's 33:15 Correct 8:14 10:18 11:25 12:4 14:17, 18, 21 24:6 25:3, 15, 18, 25 26:11, 24 27:2, 22 28:1, 19, 23 29:1, 19 30:8, 9, 20, 24 31:1 34:4 35:1, 2 37:23 39:10 40:10, 12, 24 43:6, 19, 22 46:25 49:10 50:2 55:5 56:10, 14 59:25 60:15 61:25 62:4 72:24 73:5 75:1, 5 78:18 86:15, 19 88:18 correctly 28:13 correspondenc e 17:24 26:18 30:14 40:4 96:9 counsel 23:15, 17, 23 24:25 59:1 70:7 79:3, 7, 24 100:10, 12 COUNTY 1:2 71:5, 19, 25 72:3 82:16 84:15 98:6 100:2 couple 94:9 course 16:25 23:25 33:6 37:2 45:3 63:6, 24 64:16 97:13 COURT 1:1, 23 3:11 4:3, 24 5:5, 8, 19, 22 6:2, 5, 14, 23 7:4, 12, 25 8:3 9:15 10:4, 7, 11 11:6 12:23 13:15, 19 15:25 16:11 17:9, 12, 16 19:4 20:8, 16, 22 21:3 23:2 25:10 26:4 31:6 33:25 34:7 36:1 37:17 40:25 41:3, 17, 20, 24, 24, 25 42:15 45:2, 10, 11, 13 47:22 48:1, 6 50:7, 11, 17, 19, 19, 21 51:7, 9, 21 52:13, 23 53:1, 7, 10, 13, 15 54:14, 19, 22 55:12, 15, 20 56:4, 18, 21 58:13 59:3, 7, 14 60:23 61:2, 14, 21 62:18 63:9 64:8, 19 66:11, 14, 18 67:4, 6, 13, 17, 19, 24 68:12 69:10, 15, 23 70:4, 9, 10, 15 71:7, 13 72:14, 22, 25 73:3, 4, 7, 11, 19 74:13 75:14 77:15, 17, 18 78:16, 18, 22 79:1, 15 80:13, 17, 20 81:6 82:11, 13, 21 83:2, 18 84:19 85:9, 12, 15, 23 86:5, 9, 13, 20 87:19 88:20, 25 89:7, 12, 16 90:5, 16, 24 91:4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17 92:10, 20, 25 93:6, 11, 15 94:8, 14, 17, 22, 25 95:14 96:17, 24 97:6, 19, 22 98:22 99:2, 12 courtroom 88:22 Court's 50:4 93:13 covenants 68:1 cover 99:8 credited 36:21 cross-examinati on 8:5 92:4, 8 cross-examine 94:23 cure 42:6 cured 42:7 current 8:16 62:3 Currently 17:21 52:3 custodian 18:22, 24 19:21 20:1 23:13 25:17 30:19 49:20 54:20 66:13 69:4 95:8, 23 <D> Dallas 98:7 damaged 94:4 Daniel 2:2 Danielle 1:21 100:4, 22 database 18:8, 9, 11, 13 57:15 DATE 1:15 14:8, 9, 12 21:12 40:5 41:11 60:1 71:18 dated 3:13 42:24 60:3 68:16 76:1 81:20 97:25 100:15 dates 21:21 39:11 day 14:7 24:4, 15 54:3 71:4 76:19 94:4 100:15 days 42:8 DCA 63:25 84:22 DCA's 69:23 dealt 46:7 decision 63:24 default 42:5, 6, 7 defaults 31:12 32:20 defendant 5:7, 13 38:4 46:24 64:25 93:23 Defendants 1:10 2:10 defense 7:8 defenses 7:9 defining 51:16 definitely 94:1 Delaware 8:12, 13, 15 10:16 12:3 13:10 14:2 15:18 20:11 25:2, 7 27:9, 15 28:4 29:4 33:11, 15 44:20, 21 60:10 62:22 63:4 66:4 74:4, 22 76:5 78:12 80:5 81:25 83:24 84:7 92:1 97:13 demand 42:3 denied 96:8 deny 94:10 deposited 51:6 54:3 describe 17:19 45:24 described 32:17 79:8 describing 17:15 desires 41:25 determination 19:18 23:4 25:19 26:2 35:4, 20 36:5 38:8 40:14 88:2 determine 17:9 20:4 21:12 29:2 36:25 86:17 88:16 determined 25:14 97:18 Deutsche 19:8 23:13 24:5, 13 25:14 54:17, 22 55:8, 23 56:13, 15 58:15, 17 60:6, 8 61:24 62:8, 16 64:11 65:10 66:1 75:2, 7, 20 76:6, 8, 9, 16, 18 77:10 79:25 80:2, 24 83:3, 14 85:6 86:20, 22 88:17 89:21 95:8, 24 98:9 differ 97:22 different 65:9, 11, 12 71:13 95:18 98:21 Dire 3:6 10:3, 10, 13 24:24 44:16, 17 Direct 3:4, 5 6:15 16:13 directed 76:25 directly 21:24 33:22 54:2 disagree 93:11 disagreement 93:14 discover 22:5 discovered 34:22 discovery 96:15 discrepancy 34:22 68:4 discretion 92:25 dismiss 7:7 dismissal 4:17 91:3 98:25 99:6 dismissing 98:24 distinct 7:17 70:14 79:17 distinguish 64:9 divulged 76:22 document 18:16 30:14 41:6, 10, 22 42:1, 2, 21 43:17, 23 44:24 47:18, 22 48:5, 14 50:7 51:1, 4, 17 58:6, 10, 19, 21, 25 59:2, 12, 17, 18, 19 60:5 68:2, 10, 14 69:2 70:3, 4, 12 71:8, 9 72:7, 10, 20 77:3, 13 82:6 96:9 98:11 documentation 27:24 documents 6:13 18:7, 20 21:8 22:24 23:12, 15, 16, 20, 22 28:11 29:13 30:12, 12, 22 37:15 49:19, 25 50:15 57:24 60:13, 22 63:13 65:12 66:10 69:3 84:14 87:9, 17 88:22 96:6, 7, 8 draw 95:12 Drive 2:4 due 31:20 36:11 52:3 duly 5:24 dumped 77:7 duration 29:9 duties 8:24 9:7, 24 32:16 dynamic 65:6 <E> earlier 30:4, 21 39:7 40:7 44:8 49:24 53:24 62:20 85:5 89:1 early 91:14 efforts 40:18 eight-and-a-half 70:16 electronic 28:5 30:5 32:11 electronically 30:16 32:13 elements 66:15 elicit 59:5 76:14 employed 8:4 employee 100:10, 11 employer 6:20 7:2 8:10 9:18 ended 22:20 53:1 endorsed 51:5 endorsement 6:11 47:3, 6, 11, 12 52:18 53:16 55:13 64:21 97:20, 21 endorsements 47:2 75:21, 22 enforce 56:3 93:13 ensure 34:14 enter 21:17 57:8 entered 14:25 15:23, 25 23:11 40:3 57:8 58:4 78:25 99:9 entire 30:17 66:14 entirely 95:18 entities 60:4 entitled 66:7, 8 entity 6:25 8:9 19:24 43:1, 1, 2 60:10 75:12 76:17 entry 40:3
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
4
escrow 29:12 34:14 ESQUIRE 2:2, 2, 5, 7, 7 essentially 33:2 82:23 establish 14:1 establishes 74:4 et 1:9 evaluating 23:23 evaluations 32:23 everybody 4:7 evidence 37:16 45:10 50:6 54:7 57:9 61:20 69:8 75:15, 16 80:10 82:25 83:2, 19 85:19 89:2 90:7, 20 92:23 96:1, 11, 18, 22, 23, 25 97:3 evidence. 45:15 exact 25:6 66:2 exactly 14:13 18:9 22:21 28:2 79:7 80:8 Examination 3:4, 5, 6, 7 6:15 10:13 16:13 44:17 45:16 exception 94:12 exclusive 55:9 executed 47:5 59:10 71:5 82:2 83:15 Exhibit 3:11, 11 44:16 45:8 79:13 81:19, 19, 21 exhibits 69:8 77:6 81:17 exist 17:20 existed 7:18 15:16, 17 existence 14:3, 16 20:12 existing 84:14 exists 74:11 expected 68:11 expires 71:23 explain 7:4 27:5 31:8 explore 42:13 expression 85:11 extent 34:5 58:9 59:9 eye 45:20 <F> facility 32:3 fact 24:22 44:8 64:17 69:25 70:25 78:4 81:3 83:13, 20, 25 facts 65:9, 11, 15 82:23 factual 66:2, 5, 15 factually 97:5 failed 95:11 familiar 9:10, 21, 25 10:19, 21 11:10, 13, 15, 19 14:9 18:11, 15, 23 far 52:15 76:16 92:4 94:8 96:2, 25 fault 51:13 February 39:14 fees 34:12 Fernandez 1:21 100:4, 22 figures 28:11 29:12 34:8, 16 35:2 52:5, 6 90:12 91:7 file 6:12 9:4 17:23 50:22 53:15 55:12 69:22 73:9 75:17 77:18, 18 90:22 91:13 98:22 99:2 filed 6:10 11:2 16:4 20:8 45:9 62:5 65:16 67:16 73:13 74:2, 17 77:17, 18 78:9, 23 79:6, 23 80:17 82:3, 8, 10, 16 84:1 89:25 95:6 98:22 files 4:7, 12 9:1, 2 filing 4:11 14:8 30:23 66:10 74:11 77:2 88:15 filled 66:6 final 53:17 77:20 92:13 99:9 financially 100:13 find 20:19 22:21 37:5 46:15 finding 23:9 findings 45:24 62:1 fine 79:3 finished 10:4, 5 firm 49:25 First 1:19 4:20 26:22 30:22 58:8 79:20 95:16 first-class 38:14 43:25 first-hand 84:5 five 80:19 97:8 FLORIDA 1:2, 20, 23 2:4, 9 51:3 71:19 72:3 100:2 folks 53:11 followed 54:1 following 69:2 follows 68:24 forbearance 33:1 46:3 foreclose 55:14 64:24 81:4 foreclosure 5:12 8:22 32:19, 20, 21 42:8 50:1 54:10 55:7, 10 58:1 61:10 63:1 65:19 66:9, 13, 16 78:3 80:8 94:4 foreclosures 4:5 foregoing 100:6 form 70:23 71:14 forward 4:21 35:14, 25 54:10 65:24 66:8 84:19 found 38:2 39:22 88:3 Foundation 9:14 10:7 17:14 19:3 20:23 22:10, 17, 22 24:8, 10 47:21 48:19 56:17 60:21 62:12 88:21 89:19 90:4 four-and-a-half 5:14 93:24 94:3 free 93:23 front 97:6 FUINO 2:7 function 13:4, 6, 8 funds 36:19 Further 3:7 7:21 16:8 45:16 90:18, 25 100:9 <G> G-a-r-g-i-u-t-o 71:21 garner 21:23 23:24 generated 40:5 giving 28:16 Glare 63:24 gleaned 30:1 goes 7:21 32:19, 21 71:15 73:20 good 48:23 Government 87:12, 13 green 38:5, 18, 21 39:2 44:10 group 27:14 69:12 guess 63:9 66:18 86:18 guys 67:4 <H> HAMP 46:2 handed 58:10 handing 41:22 59:17 handle 9:4 handling 8:25 49:25 happened 22:6 23:6 happens 34:21 39:2 Hardman 77:16 98:6 head 47:7 head. 42:15 hear 98:8 heard 64:16 75:18 76:21 hearing 69:20 76:8 hearsay 39:18 45:1 50:18 63:12, 12, 12 66:17 78:8 88:21 89:4 96:21 97:15 HELD 1:15 65:15 he'll 37:17 history 17:22, 23 26:16 30:13, 13 33:7 34:10, 15, 19 64:10, 18 90:11 91:20 92:15 hold 65:8 79:19 80:7 93:20 95:16, 19 holder 52:16 53:4, 19, 21 55:1, 2, 6, 11, 16 56:1, 2 65:19 66:7 74:13 76:3, 19 77:22 79:15 81:2 91:14 92:11, 13 93:3, 7, 12, 13 94:18 95:9, 11 96:3, 21, 23 97:11 99:2 holding 66:10 holds 80:21 81:17 95:20 HOME 1:5 4:22 5:21 6:21 7:15, 17, 20 8:10, 11, 19 9:11 10:16, 19, 23 11:2, 5, 11, 17, 23 12:2, 6, 10, 19 13:2, 9 14:1 23:21 25:22 27:6, 8, 10 42:25 44:20 48:22, 25 52:16 53:2, 18 56:25 60:7, 9 75:11 76:4 77:21 79:18, 21 81:23 83:8 86:23 88:6 91:25 98:4 Honor 5:1, 6, 10, 11 6:7, 22 7:1, 6, 24 8:7 9:13 10:2, 6, 12 12:22 13:13, 24 15:21 16:7, 12 17:6, 7 19:2 20:9, 21, 25 21:15 22:9, 11 24:8, 11, 18 25:4 31:4 33:18, 21 35:22 37:14 41:5, 15, 18, 19 42:9, 14 44:16, 23 45:12 47:14, 16, 25 48:4, 7 50:3, 9, 12, 14 51:2, 11, 23 52:9 53:6, 23 54:8, 15 55:5, 18, 21 56:5 58:5, 11, 15, 25 59:6, 9 60:20 61:13, 19 62:11 63:24 64:15 65:17 67:5, 10 68:3, 22 69:19 74:1, 23, 24 76:13 78:21 79:4 80:2, 16 81:5 83:23 84:24 88:19, 24 89:5 90:1, 2, 9, 10, 19 91:2 92:17 94:13, 20, 24 97:2 99:11 HONORABLE 1:15 5:25 hours 94:9 house 93:24 housed 16:21 18:4 87:11 houses 77:1 hurdle 91:18 <I> identified 58:18 identify 57:16, 20 illustrate 7:12 image 18:6, 15 39:5, 6 43:8, 17 44:1 46:16 49:13 imaged 44:10 imaging 18:7 37:9, 11 42:3 59:20, 23 important 7:13 34:1 65:14 75:10 impression 95:3 improper 55:25 81:11 inadmissible 58:12, 23 inasmuch 78:1 Inc. 8:10, 19 9:11 Inc.'s 7:18 include 30:10 33:10 included 68:6 97:8 includes 28:20 including 49:4 indemnify 64:25 independent 15:9 49:9 in-depth 64:7 indicate 11:21 indicated 26:21 37:20 41:13 43:13 61:23 indicating 14:6 95:25 indication 44:4, 7 individual 46:7 industry 12:13
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
5
15:10 infinite 69:23 information 17:2 19:12 21:23 23:24 27:25 28:2, 16, 20, 21 29:25 30:6, 10, 11 33:11, 23 34:4 37:5, 7 39:20, 22 40:21 48:21 49:3 57:13, 14 62:15 81:16 86:10 87:3 initial 29:1 inputted 15:6 17:2 32:9 inquire 16:8 inquisitive 74:24 instituting 32:20 instrument 72:19 insufficient 36:19 insurance 31:13 interest 28:9 29:13 34:12 74:7 interested 100:14 interesting 71:18 interestingly 78:14 interjected 65:8 interrogatories 79:11 intervening 70:21 introduced 96:22 introduction 44:24 Investment 86:24 investor 19:6, 8, 14, 22 20:1 23:11 24:5, 14 25:14 30:19 54:4, 4, 22 55:23 57:16, 16 61:24 62:17 64:12 66:2 75:8, 20 76:19 78:4 80:3 83:14 86:16, 17, 19, 21, 23 88:17 89:21 95:7, 22, 23 96:1 97:5 involuntary 91:3 98:25 involving 5:12 issue 8:16 34:24 53:8, 14, 21 63:25 64:1, 2 74:10 89:14 91:9, 11, 15 92:8, 11, 13 94:18 97:7, 17 issued 78:16 issues 9:1 90:15 92:2, 16 <J> Jackson 98:7 JASON 2:7 Jody 47:12 68:18 71:4, 17, 17 75:25 JP 4:9 53:16 69:17 73:22 76:11 judgment 52:7, 11 53:18 77:20 78:15, 25 90:12 91:7 93:8 99:9 JUDICIAL 1:1, 15 13:19 82:12 Judy 47:7, 9 July 27:18 29:6, 8, 23 31:3 35:10, 13, 24 36:12, 15, 22 40:9 49:6 60:3 June 6:10 23:12, 14 24:14 25:20 26:7 36:11 39:15 55:24 74:17 77:10, 19 78:23 80:17 <K> KEARSE 3:3 5:20, 22, 24 6:4, 17, 19 8:9 16:15 20:18 23:4 25:12 31:8 33:24 41:22 45:18 51:25 53:24, 25 56:7 59:17 61:23 65:1, 20 66:11 67:7 68:9, 13, 20 76:15 77:23 80:3 84:12 85:2, 25 91:22 97:16 K-e-a-r-s-e 6:4 Kearse's 50:4 74:3, 18 76:17 93:5 keeping 15:10 key 55:13 kicked 34:25 kind 24:25 64:6 70:19 71:24 79:17 94:15 98:16 King 2:4 knowing 90:13 knowledge 11:8 12:15 14:24 15:1, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24 16:5 17:3 20:15 42:12 44:25 48:12 49:9 64:7 76:18 84:5 90:4 knows 10:8 33:19 77:16 95:5 KRAL 2:7 KRYSTAL 3:3 5:20, 24 6:19 <L> lag 29:7 language 93:3, 4 98:15 99:7, 10 late 34:12 latitude 17:8 Law 2:2 5:2 49:25 lawsuit 4:11 7:11, 14 8:16 14:9, 10 16:4 63:7 65:16 74:1, 8, 12 79:6, 23 82:9, 10 84:2 95:6 layer 63:22 leave 66:24 legal 51:16 54:8 65:20 70:20 78:2 80:6 90:15 91:6 95:1 legally 65:24 66:6 lender 48:11 49:15 lets 57:15 letter 3:13 38:10, 11, 11, 13 39:13 40:5 41:3 42:4, 11, 18, 19, 23 43:8, 14, 24, 25 44:1, 6, 19 99:8 letters 17:24, 25 26:18 37:3, 6, 9, 12, 22, 25 38:3, 6, 19 40:2, 11, 12, 15, 19, 25 44:9 level 76:10 life 45:22 limited 55:7 58:14 59:22 60:14, 16 65:21 68:23 link 95:12 list 79:13 listed 40:11 litigated 8:25 little 67:1 76:14 81:7 live 32:4 78:8 living 93:23 loan 5:13 11:14, 20 16:20 17:23 18:3 19:14 20:20 21:13, 14 22:20 23:10, 10 24:4 25:21 26:9, 16, 19, 20, 23 27:17 28:9, 13, 15 29:4, 8, 15, 18, 21 30:7, 13, 15, 15 31:8, 10, 13, 18 32:18 33:2, 6, 7, 15, 16 34:24 35:1, 2, 9, 13, 21 36:6 37:2, 8 39:8 40:4, 9 42:22 45:20, 22 46:7 48:18 52:2, 21 54:1 56:9, 24 57:14, 17, 18, 20 58:1 61:10 62:3, 21 74:5, 20 77:7, 7 86:16 88:4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 89:22 loans 18:20 29:9 48:15, 23, 24 49:1 located 15:3 log 40:1 logged 40:4 long 8:18 64:24 86:18 look 19:15 49:11 52:6 72:13 80:13 81:19 looked 39:7 46:14 87:2 89:22 looking 22:5 45:21 looks 83:9 loss 45:21 46:9 lot 63:20 68:15 70:18, 18 72:3 lots 53:10 love 69:23, 25 LUCY 1:9 2:12 5:7 33:8 43:24 46:8, 24 Lucy's 46:23 Lynch 47:8, 9, 13 68:18 71:4, 17 75:25 <M> mail 32:2 38:5, 12, 13, 14 43:25 44:2, 3 mailing 38:1 main 53:21 maintain 32:22 maintained 11:16 12:6, 11 18:16 maintaining 31:11 maintains 9:18 making 32:8 March 1:15 22:19 81:21 82:2 83:15 98:1 mark 68:17 marked 70:13 Maryland 10:20, 24 11:3, 12, 17, 24 12:7, 11, 19 13:3 14:22, 23 15:18 25:3, 6, 23, 24 26:9, 22 27:8, 11 28:3, 21 30:6 40:22 43:2, 3, 10 45:5 48:16, 23 49:1 56:12 57:1 62:23, 24, 25 66:4 74:2, 19 76:5 78:10 79:22 80:5 81:25 83:16, 24 84:1, 9 88:7 92:1, 4 95:6 97:13 Massachusetts 14:21 matter 49:20 77:8 82:1 89:8, 17 MATTHEW 2:5, 7 5:6 McLean 4:8 53:16 69:16 73:21, 22 76:10 79:16 93:6 mean 19:1 59:3 72:22 83:2 91:6 95:1 meaning 73:15, 18 means 72:9 87:15 merger 28:20 MERS 81:8, 10 method 38:1 methods 38:15 MICHAEL 2:7 Michelle 71:21 middle 51:10, 12 mind 11:22 12:1 24:18 36:20 minute 24:3 mischaracterize d 54:12 missing 28:12 mitigation 45:21 46:9 modification 33:1 46:2, 3 MoneyGram 32:5 monitors 32:14 Morgan 4:9 53:17 69:17 73:22 76:11 MORTGAGE 1:5 4:5, 22 5:12, 21 6:9, 21 7:15, 18 8:11, 19 9:11 10:16, 20, 23 11:2, 5, 11, 17, 23 12:2, 6, 10, 19 13:2, 9 14:2 17:23 18:24 20:4 21:7, 13 22:3, 7, 15 23:6, 21 25:16, 23 27:7, 8, 10 30:13, 18 43:1 44:20 48:23, 25 49:13 50:5, 21 52:16 53:3, 18 56:25 60:7, 9 62:9 64:21 67:20, 25 69:1 70:6 72:8 75:11 76:4 77:21 79:18, 21 80:21 81:16, 18, 23 82:6 83:5, 8 86:24 88:7, 9 89:24 90:22 91:25 97:19, 25 98:2, 4, 19 mortgages 9:19 motion 7:7 53:17 77:20 92:21 93:15 94:8 move 41:10 42:8 45:10 50:6 51:21 65:24 66:8 84:20 91:2 moved 68:21 MSP 18:10 19:13, 16
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
6
31:22 32:1 57:15 multiple 32:5 62:14 64:17 <N> name 4:21 6:3, 18 25:4 46:10, 12 74:9 86:19 named 7:11 names 4:25 71:14 National 60:6 86:22 need 6:24 17:14 58:25 66:20 90:20 91:8 needed 42:6 needs 7:22 58:20 negotiable 72:19 New 71:22 72:1 Nods 42:15 nominee 81:10 NON-JURY 1:15 nonnegotiable 51:18 normal 23:25 33:6 North 1:19 notarized 98:7 notarizing 72:2 Notary 1:23 71:3, 16, 21 72:1, 17 100:5 notated 38:21 39:3 44:12 notations 37:21, 24 39:25 note 6:8, 9, 10 7:14 16:3 17:23 18:24 20:4 21:7 22:3, 7, 15 23:6 25:16 30:12, 18 46:16, 22 47:2, 4 50:5, 20, 24 51:2 55:12 56:3 62:9 64:21, 23 67:15, 20 68:6, 25 70:5 72:8, 19 73:9 75:24 76:1 80:7, 21 81:15, 16 90:22 92:24 95:12, 16 96:11, 23 97:19 noted 70:13 85:21 96:4 notes 18:1 21:19 30:14 37:8 38:2, 22 43:13, 21 44:13 100:8 notice 13:19 82:12 notices 37:1 39:9, 12 November 14:7 number 26:19 57:16 71:11 77:7 86:16, 17 87:5 88:6, 8 96:12 numbers 33:15, 16 71:9, 10 <O> oath 66:25 67:8 85:3 object 15:22 24:7 26:1 39:17 41:10 44:23 50:8, 13, 16, 23 51:14 54:11 57:5 58:11 61:19 65:5 70:2 72:17 82:17, 18 85:10, 17 87:14 objecting 41:13 42:9 84:3 Objection 6:22, 23 7:5 9:13 12:21 13:22 17:6, 12, 13 19:2, 9 20:9, 21 22:9 31:4 33:18 35:22 37:14 41:16 42:14 45:3 47:14 48:19 50:17 56:17 58:3 60:20 61:13 62:11 86:4 87:7, 20 88:19 89:1 90:5 92:24 93:1, 18, 25 94:5 objectionable 82:22 objections 63:11 68:11 obtain 32:25 obtained 11:6 57:2 obviously 74:6 93:2 occasions 62:14 occur 31:17 63:6 occurred 17:4 45:22 occurs 31:3 October 71:23 offer 45:8 54:7 office 69:5 82:16 Offices 2:2 oh 67:24 85:15 Okay 10:11 11:5, 10, 21 13:12, 18, 24 14:8, 15, 19 15:2, 20 25:10 44:22 46:14 51:21 52:25 53:5, 23 56:4 67:6 74:14 75:6 85:15 90:9, 24 93:15 94:17 95:4 old 77:7 88:6 94:16 on-boarding 28:6 Once 23:10 31:2, 9, 18 57:17 79:20 88:2 opened 69:20 operates 55:8 operating 12:5 opinion 64:2 73:22 opportunity 16:15, 19 20:18 36:24 45:18 47:1 49:11 51:25 opposed 81:13 ORANGE 100:2 order 29:14, 14 99:9 original 6:12 28:14 30:22 43:4 48:5, 11 50:5, 7, 11, 20, 20 51:4 56:13 58:20, 22 64:20 67:19 70:15, 16 71:8 72:7 73:9, 20 74:1, 8, 9, 15 75:24 76:18 90:21 97:19 originally 30:7 originals 67:17 69:13 72:12 73:13, 13 originated 48:24 95:13 origination 17:23 18:2 30:12 54:1 Outside 80:9 overcome 97:15 overrule 45:2 87:19 Overruled 16:11 36:1 41:17 50:19 60:23 62:18 86:5 owing 52:3 owned 59:11 65:7, 15 74:20 75:3 79:19, 23 93:19 96:1 owner 52:15 53:3, 19, 20 55:1, 3, 16, 22, 25 62:9 64:12 65:18 66:7 74:13 75:8, 20 76:3, 3, 7, 19 77:11, 22 79:15 80:24, 25 82:20 83:4, 10 89:14 91:14 92:11, 13 93:2, 7 94:18 95:8 96:3, 21 97:1, 8 98:2, 9 99:2, 4 owners 54:17 ownership 93:12 owns 79:25 80:20 95:20 <P> P.A 2:7 p.m 1:15, 15 67:2 p.m. 67:3 99:13 packet 70:25 packets 96:9 page 71:2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 15 72:5 98:13 pages 67:20 68:7 98:13 100:7 paid 5:14 33:3 94:2 Palm 2:4 PAMELA 1:15 5:25 paper 51:8, 15 72:23 73:5 98:15, 18 Paragraph 80:19 81:14 97:8 part 6:13 9:7, 24 13:22 31:22 32:18 43:9, 16, 17 46:18 55:24 64:12 65:12 68:5 69:2, 8 76:20, 23 82:15 86:13 88:4 95:14 98:20 particular 5:11 9:3 20:19 21:13 22:3, 6 29:20 33:4, 7 34:24 35:7, 21 38:1 39:8 42:18, 23 43:7, 14 46:6 48:13 49:20 52:2 56:7 57:17, 18 58:1 60:18 61:5 62:5, 21 63:7 64:14 65:18 68:10 73:24 74:15 77:6, 8, 13 83:14 86:15 88:4, 11 90:10 parties 65:9 100:11, 12 party 58:18 96:12 paying 31:12 payment 17:22 26:16 30:13 32:3, 25 33:7, 15 34:10, 15, 19 36:9, 10, 11, 16 64:10 90:11 91:20 92:15 payments 28:8 29:12 31:11, 19, 20, 25 32:2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14 34:11, 11 35:21 36:6, 13, 18, 21 PAYNE 2:2 5:4 PB 28:8 pending 77:5 people 47:23 perfectly 64:5 period 35:17 permission 5:17 permitted 93:20 person 32:8, 14 78:13 personal 14:24 15:1, 12, 14, 15, 19 20:14 44:25 49:9 personally 47:10 71:17 persons 17:3 person's 72:2 pertaining 18:2 22:3 30:14, 15 pertains 92:6 Petersburg 1:15, 20 2:9 ph 63:24 physical 18:19 25:16 30:18 49:19 physically 15:3 piece 98:15, 18 pieces 72:22 73:5 PINELLAS 1:2 71:5, 20, 25 72:3 82:16 PLACE 1:15 28:6, 7, 11, 12 Plaintiff 1:6 2:5 4:10 5:3, 4 7:10 8:16 9:5 16:16 17:20 18:17 21:25 22:14, 21, 25 24:1 26:8 29:5 30:2, 8 31:2, 9 33:5, 14, 22 34:3, 21 35:13 36:8, 15 38:10, 25 39:3 40:8 41:12 42:19 43:9 46:15, 19 49:6, 19 54:9 56:8, 16 57:25 58:16 59:24 61:9 62:2 64:18, 20, 22 65:3, 23 66:8 69:3 74:9 80:20 81:2, 17 82:8 88:14 91:1 94:2, 5 97:12 Plaintiff's 3:11 16:21 19:17 21:9 23:5 25:13 26:25 27:21, 23 28:17 29:3, 16 32:1 35:5 36:25 40:23 44:5 45:13, 14, 19 46:6 49:4, 12 51:6 52:1 62:2, 16 plan 46:3 52:14 plans 36:17 46:3 platform 17:22 37:8 57:15 pleading 55:25 78:2 81:11, 13 97:7 pleadings 65:18 80:10, 12 92:22
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
7
please 4:21 5:5, 19, 23 6:17 17:10, 19 67:7 99:6 pled 54:18 65:6 79:19 82:25 plenty 17:8 plus 84:13 point 4:16, 22 7:19, 25 8:3 10:2, 5 20:12 22:16 27:3 35:25 49:18 54:4 55:14 75:10 79:4 81:24 90:12, 14 91:8 98:24 pool 23:11 57:17, 18 95:22 pooling 56:24 57:6, 11 85:13, 18, 25 86:2, 7 87:23 88:4, 15 96:5 portion 48:24 position 9:4 72:18 93:14 possession 42:19 50:5 51:6 64:23 95:10 power 54:9 55:7 58:2, 14 59:10, 22 60:1, 8 98:2 powers 60:14, 16, 18 61:5, 6, 8, 18 65:21 80:5 practice 29:17 38:9, 17 predate 61:5 predated 60:17 prejudice 93:21, 22 94:2 Prejudicial 93:18 prepare 99:6 PRESENT 2:12 18:3 41:7 67:11 presented 83:1, 3 preserve 92:18 president 77:16 pretty 22:12 previously 14:19 45:9 62:14 principal 28:8 29:12 prior 13:7, 8 15:17 22:25 33:10, 24 34:3, 10, 18, 22, 25 40:16, 18 43:5, 12 61:4, 17 64:4, 18 66:13 78:11 probably 64:16 69:11 problem 4:13 proceed 5:9 7:3 11:7 55:10 58:1 63:1 90:11 proceeding 78:7 97:14 PROCEEDINGS 3:2 11:1 99:13 100:7 process 30:17 31:14, 21 35:6 43:9 74:20 91:25 produced 96:2 producing 63:13 production 79:11 96:13 proffer 97:18 proffered 68:22 73:11 76:15, 23 proffering 73:17 proof 99:10 proper 29:13 properly 32:15 property 32:19, 22, 22, 23 proposed 52:6, 11 prosecute 54:10 61:9 protecting 69:20 prove 4:10 16:1 proves 96:2 provide 24:9 35:25 41:23 57:25 58:7 65:14 provided 37:1, 4 79:12 97:16 provides 96:10 providing 21:2 66:1, 2 PSA 65:21 77:2, 4 80:4 85:6, 9, 11, 12 89:25 Public 1:23 13:22 71:22 77:2, 3, 9 82:2, 5, 10 84:13, 14 88:15 100:5 pull 64:24 87:23 88:8 purchase 27:6, 19 28:24 29:1 purchased 27:10, 14 57:1 63:3 70:23 purports 97:20 purpose 30:23 65:19 78:3 80:7 83:13 97:5 purposes 55:6 78:7 pursuant 80:4 put 24:5 54:6 63:10 90:20 91:7 95:22 <Q> question 7:3 11:15 12:24 17:11 21:3 33:21 34:5 36:3 56:19 60:24, 25 73:19 86:6 89:20 questioning 52:15, 20 questions 22:15 25:5 72:4 quickly 72:13 quite 37:3 quoted 95:24 <R> Raised 7:7, 8 9:1 rate 34:12 reaches 76:10 read 14:5 47:17 48:1 reading 47:19 ready 67:4 68:8 realized 4:4 reason 35:9 98:23 REC 70:20 recall 40:7 85:7 receipt 38:18 44:2 79:10 receive 38:18 50:20 received 17:25 23:20, 21 31:20, 25 32:2, 6, 7, 12, 13 34:11, 11 36:10, 18, 21 37:15, 25 38:4, 5, 24 39:3 43:8 44:6 45:13, 14 56:11 69:3 recess 66:23 67:2 74:1 recognize 41:25 42:2 59:18 recognizes 15:25 16:1 79:16, 16 recollection 21:20 59:1 record 6:8, 18 13:23 16:9 41:6, 9, 12 66:6 68:5 69:9, 21 72:6, 16 75:2 77:9 82:2, 5, 11 87:16 88:15 90:21 94:13 95:25 100:8 recorded 58:21, 22 72:21 82:1 83:6 records 9:11, 17, 22, 25 10:8, 23 11:11, 13, 16, 19 12:10, 12 14:1, 20, 25 15:2, 5, 8, 23, 24 16:16, 20, 22, 24 17:3, 15, 20, 21 18:4, 22, 23 19:12, 13, 17, 21, 21 20:1 21:10, 16, 24 22:2, 6, 13, 18, 25 23:5, 25 24:12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23 25:13, 17 26:8, 14, 15 27:1, 17, 21, 23 28:18 29:3 30:1, 19, 25 33:5 35:6, 12 36:7, 10, 14, 25 38:22 39:4, 7, 23, 24 40:16 43:18 44:5 45:4, 19, 25 46:6, 15, 18 49:4, 5, 12, 20 52:1 59:20 61:17 62:2, 16 64:3 65:23 66:12 69:4 76:21 77:1, 14 79:7, 8, 9, 9 84:12, 15 86:12, 14 87:2 88:13 89:23 91:24 97:16 Redirect 3:7 45:16 refer 24:21 reference 98:12 referenced 26:16 96:16 referred 33:12 43:4 referring 21:20 37:15 85:20 86:1 87:16 refers 98:14 reflect 24:13 26:14 33:6 35:12 reflected 43:20 reflecting 16:20 refresh 21:20 59:1 regard 9:18 18:20 22:14 46:8 56:16 96:4 regarding 52:2 85:18 regardless 64:18 76:5 regular 12:12 16:25 29:16 38:9 regularly 28:17 30:1 related 73:6 relates 52:2 84:9 relation 52:6 relationship 54:8 56:15 relative 100:10, 11 reliability 15:9 relied 53:25 rely 6:12 58:20 63:20 relying 21:16 22:12, 17 24:12 40:21 78:13 84:13 85:6 89:8, 10 remained 30:18 remanded 92:15 Remember 66:25 67:7 remind 4:7 remis 67:12 rent 93:23 repayment 36:17 46:3 repeatedly 95:20 report 100:6 REPORTED 1:21 Reporter 1:23 3:8 4:24 100:1, 4 representations 96:5 representative 5:16 64:6 request 23:19 49:19 79:10 96:13 requested 23:16, 16 30:22 requesting 96:7 requests 79:11 require 48:22 required 63:4 requirements 98:14 requires 93:7, 11 research 26:7 76:24 reserve 91:10 residential 5:12 9:18 resolving 9:1 respectfully 93:10 response 96:13 97:1 responsible 32:8 rest 73:12 91:20 retained 3:11 return 38:18 returned 28:14 36:18 reveal 72:16 review 10:22 11:1 16:16 21:7 22:13 23:5 25:13 26:25 27:20 28:17 29:3 35:5 36:7, 9, 14, 24 41:23, 24 43:13 45:19, 25 46:1, 5, 21 49:4 52:1 61:17 62:1, 15 84:22 87:8 88:14 reviewed 21:25 reviewing 43:23 47:12 61:6 reword 12:24 Riggs 79:16 right 4:3, 23 5:8, 19 6:5 14:5 26:5 34:7 40:9 53:12 54:21 55:4, 19 67:8 72:5 73:3 74:12 80:6 89:9, 14, 15 91:16 92:20 93:10 99:12 right-hand 42:25
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
8
rights 27:16, 16 55:9 56:2, 11 57:2, 3 62:21 63:3 77:12 Robert 77:15 98:5 Ronald 46:10 Room 1:20 rule 92:25 ruling 16:10 45:7 59:6 90:13 92:7, 13, 18 97:23 <S> saw 59:3, 23 saying 7:16 8:4 63:18 75:19 78:2 91:12 SCC 77:1, 3 87:13, 22 88:3, 14 89:25 schedule 88:9, 11 89:24 scope 69:5 80:9 second 66:20 71:2, 6, 7 98:18 secretary 87:6, 12 section 71:24 secured 32:23 see 16:19 30:25 40:18, 19 47:1 49:12 52:12 53:10, 14 56:22 57:18 59:8, 14 69:15 71:2 75:15, 16, 20, 23 76:2, 8 81:9 87:3 91:7 99:1 seeing 63:17 send 38:10, 11 sent 17:24 23:12, 15, 17, 19, 23 37:22 38:13 39:9, 13 40:2, 6, 15, 20 42:4, 11 43:14, 21, 24, 25 44:2, 19, 25 49:25 69:4 separate 7:17 12:2 50:14 70:14 79:17 September 14:14 39:16 62:6 82:4 sequential 71:10 serve 89:8 service 49:2 61:10 serviced 25:22 31:9, 10 48:15 49:1 servicer 23:1 28:14 33:24 34:23, 25 43:5 54:23, 25 56:8, 13, 23 62:3 65:6 75:12 77:11 79:14 81:3 82:19 83:9 94:6 servicers 64:3, 4 servicer's 34:19 40:16 Servicing 5:21 7:15, 18 8:10, 11, 19 9:11 10:16, 20, 24 11:6, 11, 20 12:7, 10, 19 13:10 14:2 17:22 22:23 23:21 25:20 26:9, 13, 20, 23 27:3, 15, 18 28:2, 15 29:15 30:7 31:2, 5, 13 32:18, 21 33:11 34:4 35:13, 16, 24 37:8 40:18 42:22 43:1 44:20 48:18 52:17 53:3, 19 54:5 56:11, 16, 24, 25 57:2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 60:7, 9 62:21 75:5, 11, 14 76:4 77:21 79:8, 19, 22 81:23 83:8 85:14, 18, 25 86:2 87:23 88:5, 16 96:6 98:4 Serving 6:21 7:21 sets 24:19, 20, 22 Shorthand 100:4 shorty 25:9 show 13:15 26:15 27:25 52:10 58:24 59:5, 7, 12 82:7 90:3 showed 38:3 showing 13:25 38:6 41:6 77:14 shown 94:6 shows 44:2 53:15 76:2 77:6 96:10 signatories 46:22 signature 48:2 71:3, 20 72:2 signed 38:4 44:10 98:5 signing 47:13 60:4 simple 5:11 simply 93:3 sir 48:6 94:14 sit 91:19 sitting 6:11 63:18 situation 78:2 SIXTH 1:1 smaller 27:11, 13 sold 23:10 95:21 somebody 4:9 59:11 78:10 son 46:10 sorry 8:2 14:23 19:25 47:16 50:10 51:11 52:17 sort 33:25 speak 78:12 92:10 special 8:22 specialist 8:23 specific 21:21 22:13 89:22 96:8 specifically 7:8 12:20 19:15 63:25 79:8 92:7 95:19, 25 spell 6:2 squiggle 48:3 68:17 squiggly 75:25 St 1:15, 20 2:9 stamp 48:3 68:17 70:20 75:24 stamped 48:3 stand 5:23 66:15, 24 standard 4:8 73:21 standards 12:13 15:10 standing 4:10, 19 69:16 73:23 74:11 97:17 staples 51:10, 12 started 13:9 35:13 62:21 84:2 State 1:23 6:17 71:19, 22 87:12 98:6 100:2 stated 7:19 10:15 statement 51:15 states 60:13 state's 87:6 status 36:6 Statute 51:3 stenographic 100:8 stenographicall y 100:6 strike 38:8 struck 84:4 stuff 71:1 81:12 92:3 subject 41:15 42:14 44:15 45:7 59:6 68:10 80:21 92:7 96:11 98:14 submission 68:6 sub-servicing 27:16 57:2 substantial 81:15 successful 35:6, 8 sufficiently 91:23 summary 53:17 77:20 93:8 support 77:19 supposedly 72:2 80:22 98:5 suspect 98:20 sustain 89:3 Sustained 9:15 17:16 19:4 20:16 31:6 61:14, 21 85:23 88:25 sustaining 90:5, 7 sworn 5:24 system 11:14, 20 12:6 15:6 18:5, 7, 16 19:13, 13, 16, 16, 21 27:18 29:11 31:18, 22 32:1, 9 34:16 35:3 37:10, 11, 21, 24 38:3 40:17, 23 42:3, 21 44:5 57:19, 19 59:20, 24 60:17 63:15, 19 <T> TAHIRAH 2:2 5:3 takes 28:6 talk 22:22 81:8 talking 24:17 64:10, 10 67:23 68:3 70:12 73:25 75:4 86:3 87:17 Tampa 2:4 taxes 31:12 telephone 18:1 telling 48:5 83:19 tells 19:14 term 51:16 terms 40:18 80:4 testified 14:19 16:5 20:10 24:11 30:4, 21 32:17 33:19 35:23 39:21 40:7 44:8 49:24 54:2, 12, 16 55:22 57:6 62:13, 20 65:20 66:12 74:23 80:4 83:23 84:12 91:23 95:5, 7, 21 testify 7:20 43:12 47:20 65:2 68:14, 20 69:6, 6, 11 70:24 89:12 96:20 testifying 7:22 14:16 15:22 20:14 22:12 47:18 60:22 64:3 77:24 82:23 84:6 89:13 TESTIMONY 3:3 9:8 16:2 20:13 24:9 35:18, 25 41:13 42:10 43:16 50:4 53:25 54:7, 13 57:6, 12 59:5 65:14, 25 66:5 67:12 68:9, 23, 25 69:1 73:12 74:3, 19 75:2, 18 76:14, 16, 22 77:4 80:24 83:11 84:20 85:5, 18 89:3, 11, 19, 22 90:1 91:14, 19 93:5 95:1 96:19 97:16 98:8 99:1, 3 tests 15:9 Texas 98:6 Thank 5:8, 10 6:2, 5, 7, 14 7:6 8:7 10:12 16:12 17:17 41:18 42:16 45:6 47:25 48:7 51:23 54:15 56:5 62:24 67:6, 9, 10 85:16 90:24 93:15 99:11, 12 things 63:14, 20 67:11 76:13 94:7 96:17 think 17:7 22:11 27:12 55:5 67:22 69:11 70:12, 13, 24 73:25 74:3 76:3, 10 78:1, 10 80:22, 22 81:1, 4, 5, 6, 11 83:22 89:7, 16 90:12, 16, 22 91:22, 23 92:8, 9 93:4, 6 94:20 97:4, 9, 11, 17 99:3 thought 94:25 three 81:14 thrown 92:3 TIME 1:15 4:11, 16 7:19 8:1, 3 10:5 12:18, 22 16:3, 4 17:3 20:7, 12 23:12, 14 25:20 26:7, 10, 13 29:7, 9 30:22 35:17 40:5 49:18 62:8, 25 65:15 66:14 73:18 74:11, 18 77:9, 11, 12 78:6 79:5 95:16 times 64:17 title 70:7 86:8, 18 titled 67:24 titleless 98:12 today 4:12 5:17 12:17 24:14 35:18 tomorrow 69:22 top 42:23 47:7 67:25 70:22 totally 77:23 78:1 Trainer 98:7 transaction 17:4
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991
9
transcript 84:22 transfer 22:23 25:6 28:5, 6 30:5 74:7 75:5 79:9 82:7 transferred 28:3 30:16 40:22 42:22 49:2 83:25 95:10 96:12 transfers 35:17 travel 12:18, 22 TRIAL 1:15 4:6 66:20 93:9 94:9 95:17 trouble 63:9, 11 troubled 76:7 troubling 81:7 true 37:11 100:7 trust 24:5 54:3 60:6 77:8, 9 86:22, 24 87:5 trustee 86:23 truth 89:8, 16 truthfully 89:13 twice 79:20 two 7:17 24:19, 19, 22 50:14 72:22 73:5 79:17 85:22 88:23 98:13 two-page 70:16 98:11 type 18:5 33:1 40:3 45:21 46:2 typed 48:2 <U> U.S 87:12, 13 Uh-huh 14:11 umbrella 27:12 uncomfortable 63:16 undated 77:17 understood 69:19 Unfortunately 46:4 Union 32:5 unsuccessful 46:4 untitled 70:8, 17 upper 42:25 <V> vacant 32:23 vacated 78:17, 25 79:1 verified 34:3, 8 verifies 33:23 verify 33:14 versus 4:9, 22 53:16 69:16 73:22 76:10 vice 77:16 view 43:17 virtually 24:4, 15 virtue 81:15, 18 Voir 3:6 10:3, 10, 13 24:24 44:16, 17 voluntarily 4:16 vs 1:7 <W> waiting 91:6 walk 32:3 wants 57:8 58:20 70:7 90:3 way 12:16 35:2 40:17 57:3 63:14 97:23 ways 32:5 Website 77:1 87:6, 22 88:3, 9, 14 89:4 WEIDNER 2:5, 7 3:6 5:5, 6 6:22, 24 7:4, 6 9:13 10:2, 9, 11, 12, 14 12:21, 23 13:1, 13, 17, 20, 24 14:4 15:21 17:6, 8, 14 19:2, 9 20:9, 21, 23 21:15 22:9 24:7, 16 26:1 31:4 33:18 35:22 37:14 39:17 41:6, 9 42:9 44:18, 23 45:6, 11, 12 47:14, 20 48:19 50:8, 13, 18, 23 51:14 52:11 54:11, 16, 21 55:17 56:17 57:5 58:3, 8, 9, 17 59:9 60:20 61:13, 19 62:11 65:4 66:17 69:25 70:5, 11 72:10, 15, 24 73:2 75:1, 6, 10 79:4 80:9 82:17, 22 84:3, 16, 18 85:10, 17 86:4 87:7, 14 88:19, 21 90:6, 25 91:1 93:18, 25 94:5, 22, 23 95:4 99:5, 11 W-e-i-d-n-e-r 5:6 Weidner's 41:16 42:14 44:15 63:10 68:10 92:24 weight 79:1 87:21 90:2 we're 17:15 24:17 25:8 34:2 40:17 55:17 66:19, 23 70:11 78:13 81:5 82:20, 20 84:21 90:12, 14 91:5 Western 32:5 We've 90:20 93:19 97:4 whatsoever 96:10, 11 willing 65:2 68:8 wisdom 69:24 92:10 witness 5:16, 18, 23 6:1, 4 7:19 10:3 13:14, 25 15:22 16:2, 4, 8 20:10 21:4, 15 22:17 25:1, 1 34:8 36:3 41:2, 4, 8, 19 47:15 50:25 52:10, 10, 14, 15 54:16 56:20, 23 58:6, 25 59:5 60:25 65:13 66:24 70:24 78:8 79:24 83:3, 10, 21 84:20 85:13 86:7, 11, 15, 21 87:8, 22 90:21 94:24 95:4, 7, 21 96:19, 20 won 70:1 word 97:7 98:18 words 89:20 98:16 work 8:9, 22 10:15 32:25 46:2 worked 8:18 12:8 18:13 20:10 36:17 working 13:9 works 47:21 wrong 65:5 wrongful 64:23 <Y> year 8:20 20:11 74:5 82:9, 9 years 5:14 85:22 88:23 93:24 94:3 York 71:22 72:1 <Z> ZAKARIAN 2:2 3:4, 5, 7 5:1, 2, 9, 10, 20 6:7, 16 7:1, 24 8:2, 7, 8 9:16 10:6, 9 13:16, 18, 21 16:7, 12, 14 17:7, 10, 17, 18 19:5, 10 20:17, 25 21:5, 18 22:11 23:3 24:10, 24 25:11 26:3, 5, 6 31:7 33:21 34:2, 17 36:4 37:19 39:19 41:5, 15, 18, 21 42:13, 16, 17 44:15 45:7, 17 47:16, 25 48:4, 7, 8, 20 50:3, 10, 12 51:2, 11, 19, 23, 24 52:9, 20, 25 53:5, 9, 12, 23 54:15 55:4, 19, 21 56:5, 6 57:10 58:5, 14, 24 59:4, 16 61:3, 15, 22 62:13, 19 63:23 64:15 65:17 67:5, 10, 18, 22 68:2, 22 69:14, 18 70:8 71:2, 12 72:5 73:4, 8, 17, 24 74:14 75:4, 7, 13 76:12 77:25 78:21, 24 80:1, 11, 16, 19, 25 81:20 82:14 83:12, 22 84:11, 23 85:1, 16, 24 87:1, 10 88:1, 24 89:5, 10, 15, 18 90:9, 19 91:5, 10, 16 92:17, 21 93:10, 22 94:1, 12, 15, 20 95:2 97:2 99:8
ORANGE LEGAL
800-275-7991

Hearing Transcript. American Home Mortgage - Case Dismissed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hearing Transcript. American Home Mortgage - Case Dismissed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ___________________________/ 13 14 15 16 DATE TAKEN: 17 TIME: 18 PLACE: 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 24 25

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, Plaintiff, vs.

LUCY BEDNAREK, et al., Defendants.

NON-JURY TRIAL HELD BEFORE:

Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Zakarian CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

P R O C E E D I N G S * * * * * THE COURT: All right. So in case you

I would like to remind everybody of

Yes, Your Honor.

I do. Thank you. And spell your

Kearse, K-e-a-r-s-e. All right. Thank you. Go

Thank you, Your Honor.

clarification on who that entity is.

Your Honor, I just asked

Well, at this point in

time -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: I'm sorry --

-- at this point in time,

testimony in cases? A. Q. I do. Are you familiar with the business

familiar with those business records?

It is. MR. WEIDNER: Your Honor, at this point I

The basis for the foundation

Thank you, Your Honor.

Did you review the bankruptcy proceedings

within my -Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the books

And it's clear in your mind that there is

reword your question.

BY MR. WEIDNER: Q. Do you know when American Home Mortgage

showing the witness here are the corporate

September 2007. Q. Okay. So it was before the corporation

physically located? A. Q. I don't. Do you know how many records were

tests or any independent reliability? A. In keeping with the industry standards, I

would assume so. Q. But you have no personal knowledge of

No personal knowledge. Do you have any knowledge, personal

the regular course of business?

Yes, they are. And is the information inputted into

MR. ZAKARIAN: question? THE COURT:

He's made an objection.

MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q.

Would you please describe the business

documents are kept within our imaging system.

Yes, you mean the -MR. WEIDNER: Objection, Your Honor.

The investor is Deutsche Bank. MR. WEIDNER: Objection --

Objection, Your Honor. Basis? Foundation. How would she

the closing documents. Q. Are those contained within plaintiff's

I did. And were those business records

June 1st, 2005.

business records kept in the normal course of

There is no foundation for her to

provide that testimony. MR. ZAKARIAN: Your Honor. There is a foundation,

She's already testified that she

counsel already kind of made clear through the

Mortgage, the Maryland Corporation. Q. A. The Maryland corporation? Correct.

I'm going to object.

determination when -MR. ZAKARIAN: THE COURT: 2005 --

MR. ZAKARIAN: BY MR. ZAKARIAN: Q.

At the time of June 2005, your research

servicing at the time? records reflect that? A.

Our business records show that -- you know,

There were a few smaller companies

plaintiff's business records? A. Q. Correct. And plaintiff's business records would

Correct. How exactly did the servicing information

That's the initial purchase.

Were you able to determine from your

Correct. Once servicing begins with the plaintiff,