o 16INAl

foreclosure to the credit history maintained by Experian, even though Defendant Bank of America withdrew and cancelled its non judicial foreclosure sale .
(Former Paragraph 74) Neither Defendant Bank of America nor Defendant Wells Fargo has corrected its reports to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion to eliminate

those reports made after September 1 0, 2002. COUNT I (FORMER COUNT I) AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (BREACH OF CONTRACT) FOR FAILING TO APPROVE SALE OF PLAINTIFF'S HOME EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
80. (Former Paragraph 75, as Modified by the 2nd Amend ., as Modified by

this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates
paragraphs I through 79 by reference as if fully rewritten . 81 . (Former Paragraph 76) Pursuant to Georgia law, duties of good faith

and fair dealing were a part of the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed . Defendant Bank of America breached those duties when it refused and failed to approve the September 11 Offer to Purchase, thereby forcing Plaintiffs Home into foreclosure .

-4i -

oRI
82 . (Former Paragraph 77) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant

Bank of America's breach of its duties, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff's Home in the amount of $60,000 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiffs career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America . 83 . (Former Paragraph 78) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith in its ongoing, persistent refusal to cooperate with Plaintiff and frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to sell Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT II (FORMER COUNT II ) AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA NEGLIGENTLY DRIVING PLAINTIFF'S HOME INTO FORECLOSURE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
84 . (Farmer Paragraph 79, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended

and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 83 by reference as if fully rewritten . 85 . (Former Paragraph 80) Defendant Bank of America owed Plaintiff a

duty to exercise reasonable care in considering and then expeditiously approving

-42-

ORI NAL
the September 11 Offer to Purchase in order to avoid causing damage to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing and career and to avoid the forfeiture of Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiffs Home . Defendant Bank of America breached that duty when it refused and failed to approve the September 11 Offer to Purchase, thereby wrongfully forcing Plaintiff's Home into foreclosure . 86 . (Former Paragraph $1 ) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America's breach of its duties, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff's Home in the amount of $60,000 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiff's career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America . 87. (Former Paragraph 82) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith in its ongoing, persistent refusal to cooperate with Plaintiff and frustrate Plaintiffs
efforts to sell Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A.

§ 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs .
COUNT III (FORMER COUNT III AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA INTENTIONALLY DRIVING PLAINTIFF'S HOME INTO FORECLOSURE

- 43 -

ORIGINAL
WILLFULLY, WANTONLY & RECKLESSLY DRIVING PLAINTIFF'S HOME INTO FORECLOSURE WITH A CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES TO PLAINTIFF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS PUNITIVE DAMAGES EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 88. (Former Paragraph 83, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended

and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 87 by reference as if fully rewritten . 89 . (Former Paragraph 84, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) When Defendant Bank of America breached the duty owed Plaintiff to consider and then approve the September 11 Offer to Purchase, it did so intentionally and willfully with malice, oppressiveness and a knowledge of the resulting consequences to Plaintiff, thereby wrongfully forcing Plaintiff's Home into foreclosure . 90 . (Former Paragraph 85) When Defendant Bank of America breached the duty owed Plaintiff to consider and then approve the September I 1 Offer to Purchase, it did so willfully, wantonly, and recklessly, with malice, oppressiveness and a conscious indifference to the resulting consequences to Plaintiff, thereby wrongfully forcing Plaintiff's Home into foreclosure .

-44-

ORIGINAL
91 . (Former Paragraph 86) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant

Bank of America's breach of its duties, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiffs Home in the amount of $60,000 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiffs career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America . 92 . (Former Paragraph 87) Defendant Bank of America consistently, wrongfully, outrageously, and with malice and intent frustrated Plaintiff's efforts, making it impossible under the circumstances for Plaintiff to sell Plaintiff's Home prior to a foreclosure sale by Defendant Wells Fargo or Defendant Bank of America . As evidenced by the "Catch 22" scenario in which Plaintiff was stonewalled at every turn in his attempts to gain Defendant Bank of America's
cooperation in the sale of Plaintiff s Home, Bank of America's ever-changing requirements for approval, Defendant Bank of America's failure to respond to the

September 11 Offer to Purchase, and Bank of America's suppression and concealment of its wrongful actions, Defendant Bank of America's actions, which were directed at Plaintiff, were extreme, outrageous, intentional, malicious, and beyond the bounds of decency and what is tolerable in a civilized society . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America's breaches of its duties and obligations, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and suffering .

-45-

ORIGINAL
93 . (Former Paragraph 88) The foregoing also demonstrates aggravating circumstances that make an award of punitive damages against Defendant Bank of America appropriate . Defendant Bank of America acted with specific intent to cause harm to Plaintiff. 94. (Former Paragraph 89) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith in its ongoing, persistent refusal to cooperate with Plaintiff and frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to sell Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A . § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT IV (FORMER COUNT IV) AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND WELLS FARGO FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT (I) DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA FORCED THE FORECLOSURE OF PLAINTIFF'S HOME THEREBY DAMAGING PLAINTIFF'S CREDIT AND {II} DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA AND DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO SHOULD CORRECT REPORTS MADE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 95. (Former Paragraph 90, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 94 by reference as if fully rewritten .

-4b-

ORIGINAL
96 . (Former Paragraph 91) The wrongful conduct of Defendant Bank of America in refusing and failing to approve the September 11 Offer to Purchase forced Plaintiff's Home into foreclosure and caused Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Wells Fargo each to report a foreclosure and charged off account to the national consumer reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion . As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing and Plaintiff's career have been damaged.
97. (Former Paragraph 92) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby

requests a declaratory judgment finding and declaring (i) Defendant Bank of America's wrongful conduct in refusing and failing to approve the September 11 Offer to Purchase was the direct and proximate cause of the foreclosure of Plaintiff s Home and the charge off of the Bank of America Agreement account
and the Wells Fargo Note account and (ii) both Defendant Bank of America and

Defendant Wells Fargo should delete from Plaintiff's credit histories all reports for the Bank of America Agreement and Wells Fargo Note made to any consumer reporting agency after September 10, 2002 . 98 . (Former Paragraph 93) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith in its ongoing, persistent refusal to cooperate with Plaintiff and frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to sell Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C .G .A .

-47-

ORROVAL
§ 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT V (FORMER COUNT V) AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND WELLS FARGO FOR FINAL AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUIRING DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND WELLS FARGO TO RESTORE PLAINTIFF'S CREDIT EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 99 . (Former Paragraph 94, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 98 by reference as if fully rewritten . 100 . (Former Paragraph 95) Both Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Wells Fargo should delete from Plaintiff's credit histories made to
consumer reporting agencies all reports regarding the Bank of America Agreement and Wells Fargo Note made after September 10, 2002 .

101 . (Former Paragraph 96) Plaintiff is entitled to and therefore requests final and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Wells Fargo to restore Plaintiff's credit histories for the Bank of America Agreement and Wells Fargo Note to those that existed prior to September 11, 2002 .

-48-

DRIBINQL
102 . (Former Paragraph 97) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith in its ongoing, persistent refusal to cooperate with Plaintiff and frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to sell Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation from Defendant Bank of America, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT VI (FORMER COUNT XIII AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA AND DEFENDANT FIDELITY SOLUTIONS BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (BREACH OF CONTRACT) RELATING TO THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF PLAINTIFF'S HOME EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 103 . (Former Paragraph 161, as Modified by this Verified Second
Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 102

by reference as if fully rewritten . 104 . (Former Paragraph 162, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Pursuant to Georgia law, duties of good faith and fair dealing were a part of the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed . The duties of good faith and fair dealing obligated Defendant Bank of America to defend, safeguard and protect Plaintiffs equity in

-49-

ORIGINAL
Plaintiff's Home, which was the actual collateral and security for the Bank of
America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed . Defendant Bank of

America breached those duties when it failed to sell Plaintiff's Home at foreclosure on January 7, 2003, and again on March 4, 2003, when it failed to purchase Plaintiff's Home at foreclosure from Defendant Wells Fargo . 105 . (Former Paragraph 163) At the time of the breaches of the duties, the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was approximately $248,000 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America's breach of its duties, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff's Home in the amount of
$64,500 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing, and (iii)

damages to Plaintiff's career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America .
106 . (Former Paragraph 164) In the alternative, if the Bank of America

Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed were transferred from Defendant Bank of America to Defendant Fidelity Solutions, Defendant Fidelity Solutions stood in the place of Defendant Bank of America and breached its duties causing Plaintiff to suffer (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff's Home in the amount of $64,500 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiffs career, all of which were reasonably

-50-

ORIGINAL
foreseeable to Defendant Fidelity Solutions . In that event, Defendant Bank of America remained obligated to perform pursuant to the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed and breached these duties . 107. (Former Paragraph 165) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions acted in bad faith when they cancelled the foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2003, and failed to bid and purchase Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, thereby causing Plaintiff to forfeit the equity in Plaintiffs Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O.C.G.A . § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT VII (FORMER COUNT XIV) AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND FIDELITY SOLUTIONS NEGLIGENTLY DISREGARDING (I ) DUTIES OF REASONABLE CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFF, (II) THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY O.C.G .A. § 23-2-110 AND O .C.G.A. § 51-1-19, (III) DUTIES IMPOSED BY O.C.G.A . § 23-2-58, AND (IV) GEORGIA PUBLIC POLICY EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 108 . (Former Paragraph 166, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 107 by reference as if fully rewritten .

-5 1

ORIGINAL
109. (Former Paragraph 99) In Georgia, non-judicial foreclosure sales of real property pursuant to powers of sale were intended by statutes to secure the highest possible price for the real property to be sold through competitive bidding . Such statutes required the advertisement of the scheduled sale for four consecutive weeks prior to the foreclosure sale and drew interested bidders from throughout Georgia and from other states . In the event the price obtained for the real property at foreclosure should exceed the sum owed to the foreclosure creditor, the excess sale proceeds, called the foreclosure debtor's equity of redemption, would be paid to the party or parties entitled to it, in order of priority . When the statutory requirements were followed, a foreclosure debtor could justifiably rely on the statutory process to secure the highest price her or his real property could bring under the circumstances .
110 . (Former Paragraph 100, as Modified by this Verified Second

Amended and Restated Complaint) During the month of December 2002, through agents and representatives, both Defendant Wells Fargo and Defendant Bank of America, or Defendant Fidelity Solutions in the place of Defendant Bank of America, advertised a foreclosure sale of Plaintiff s Home on the first Tuesday of January 2003, which was January 7, for four consecutive weeks . Thus, Plaintiff could and did justifiably rely upon that process to maximize the competitive

-52-

ORUfVAL
bidding environment and secure the highest possible price for Plaintiff's Home under the circumstances . Such price would have been secured on January 7, 2003, either when Defendant Wells Fargo sold Plaintiff 5 Home or, thereafter on that same day, when Defendant Bank of America or Defendant Fidelity Solutions sold Plaintiffs Home . Both Defendants cancelled the January 7, 2003, foreclosure sales. 111 . (Former Paragraph 104, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) In February 2003, Defendant Wells Fargo once again advertised a foreclosure sale of Plaintiff's Home on the first Tuesday of March 2003, which was March 4, for four consecutive weeks . Although neither Defendant Bank of America nor Defendant Fidelity Solutions advertised Plaintiffs Home for sale at foreclosure on March 4, 2003, Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably believed Defendant Bank of America and other interested bidders would appear at the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale and bid in an attempt to purchase Plaintiff's Home . Thus, Plaintiff could and did justifiably rely upon that process to maximize the competitive bidding environment and secure the highest possible price for Plaintiffs Home under the circumstances . 112 . (Former Paragraph 113, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Inherent in the statutory scheme for the non-

-53-

DAIQ
judicial foreclosure of real property pursuant to powers of sale evidenced by

O.C .G.A. § 23-2-110, O.C .G.A. § 23-2-114, O.C .G .A. § 44-14-1b1, O.C.G.A . §
44-14-162, O .C.G.A . § 44-14-190 and other statutory provisions was a Georgia

public policy that the competitive bidding environment for real property sold at foreclosure should be maximized thereby preserving and safeguarding, to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances, the foreclosure debtors' equity of redemption . 113 . (Former Paragraph 167, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) At the foreclosure sale of Plaintiff's Home by Defendant Wells Fargo on March 4, 2003, Defendant Fidelity Solutions and Defendant Bank of America either (i) were present, both through agents or representatives, or (ii) previously had made a decision to refrain from attending the
foreclosure sale and were absent . In each such instance, Defendant Fidelity

Solutions was acting as the agent of Defendant Bank of America. In the alternative, in each such instance, Defendant Fidelity Solutions was acting in Defendant Bank of America's place as a result of the transfer of the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed to Defendant Fidelity Solutions. Nevertheless, in the alternative scenario, Defendant Bank of America

-54-

ORIGINAL
remained responsible for the actions of Defendant Fidelity Solutions or Defendant Fidelity Solutions' failure to act . 114. (Former Paragraph 168, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions negligently breached duties of reasonable care owed to Plaintiff when they failed to attend or failed to bid at the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale of Plaintiff s Home by Defendant Wells Fargo . 115. (Former Paragraph 169) Pursuant to O .C .G .A. § 23-2-110, duties and obligations of trust and confidence were the foundation for and therefore, a part of the power of sale included in the Bank of America Security Deed . Such duties and obligations required Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions to act with special care, with consideration given for the protection of Plaintiff and the preservation of Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiff's Home, when deciding when to exercise the power of sale and whether or not to exercise the power of sale . Implicit in O.C.G.A. § 23-2-112 was a duty on Defendant Bank of America to refrain from abusing the power of sale . 116 . (Former Paragraph 170) On January 7, 2003, Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions breached the duties and obligations of trust and confidence when they negligently failed to go forward with the

-55-

OR1GNAL
foreclosure sale advertised for that date, giving Plaintiff a right of action pursuant

to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-19.
117 . (Former Paragraph 171) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant

Fidelity Solutions again negligently breached the obligations of trust and confidence when, with prior knowledge the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was at least $234,900 or more and would secure most if not all of Plaintiff's obligations pursuant to the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed, they either (i) attended the foreclosure sale and negligently failed to bid on the purchase of Plaintiff s Home and thereby protect Plaintiff's equity, which was the collateral and security for Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed or (ii) they failed to attend the foreclosure sale and thereby abandoned all collateral and security for the Bank of America Agreement and
Bank of America Security Deed .

118. (Former Paragraph 172) The duties and obligations of trust and confidence imposed on Defendant Bank of America by O .C .G.A. § 23-2-110 created a confidential relationship between Defendant Bank of America and Plaintiff pursuant to O .C .G.A . § 23-2-58 . The confidential relationship required Defendant Bank of America to disclose to Plaintiff all material information, especially information regarding circumstances that could be detrimental to

-56-

ORIGINAL
Plaintiff. On March 4, 2003, Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions again negligently breached those duties and obligations when Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions failed to disclose to Plaintiff their intentions to forego bidding at the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale and to abandon the collateral and security for the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed, which was the equity in Plaintiff s Home .
119 . (Former Paragraph 173) In addition to the breaches of the duties of

reasonable care and those imposed by O .C .G .A. § 23-2-58, O .C .G.A. § 23-2-110 and O .C.G.A. § 51-1-19, Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions negligently violated Georgia public policy, which policy was intended to protected secured debtors such as Plaintiff, by failing to take reasonable steps to defend, protect and secure the collateral and security for the Bank of America
Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed, which was Plaintiff s equity in

Plaintiff's Home . 120 . (Former Paragraph 174) The fair market value of Plaintiffs Home at the time of such breaches was approximately $248,000 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America's breach of its duties, Plaintiff suffered (i)
damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff s Home in the amount of $64,500 or

more, (ii) damages to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages

-57-

ORIGINAL
to Plaintiff's career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America .
121 . (Former Paragraph 175) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant

Fidelity Solutions acted in bad faith when they cancelled the foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2003, and failed to bid on and purchase Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, all in violation of the obligations of trust and confidence and Georgia public policy, thereby causing Plaintiff to forfeit the equity in Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT VIII (FORMER COUNT XV ) AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND FIDELITY SOLUTIONS
INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDING (I) DUTIES OF REASONABLE CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFF, (II) THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY

O .C .G.A . § 23-2-110 AND O .C .G.A. § 51-1-19, (III) DUTIES IMPOSED BY O.C .G.A. § 23-2-58, AND (IV) GEORGIA PUBLIC POLICY WILLFULLY, WANTONLY & RECKLESSLY DISREGARDING (I) DUTIES OF REASONABLE CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFF, (II) THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY O .C.G.A. § 23-2-110 AND O .C .G.A. § 51-1-19, (III) DUTIES IMPOSED BY O .C.G.A. § 23-2-58, AND (IV) GEORGIA PUBLIC POLICY, ALLWITH A CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES TO PLAINTIFF

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS PUNITIVE DAMAGES

-58-

ORIGINAh
EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 122 . (Former Paragraph 176, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 121 by reference as if fully rewritten . 123 . (Former Paragraph 177) In each instance when Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions breached (i) duties of reasonable care owed to Plaintiff, (ii) the duties of trust and confidence, which duties were a part of the power of sale contained in the Bank of America Security Deed and which were imposed by O.C.G.A . § 23-2-110, and (iii) duites attendant to the confidential relationship imposed by O .C .G.A. § 23-2-58, they did so intentionally with knowledge of the resulting consequences to Plaintiff. 124 . (Former Paragraph 178) In each instance when Defendant Bank of
America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions breached (i) duties of reasonable care

owed to Plaintiff, (ii) the duties of trust and confidence, which duties were a part of the power of sale contained in the Bank of America Security Deed and which were imposed by O .C .G.A. § 23-2-110, and (iii) duties attendant to the confidential

relationship imposed by O .C.G.A. § 23-2-58, they did so willfully, wantonly, and
recklessly, with a conscious indifference to the resulting consequences to Plaintiff .

-59-

ORIGINAL
125 . (Former Paragraph 179) When Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions breached the duties imposed by Georgia public policy, which policy was intended to protected secured debtors such as Plaintiff, by failing to take reasonable steps to defend, protect and secure the collateral and security for the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed, which was Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiff's Home, they did so willfully, wantonly, and recklessly, with a conscious indifference to the resulting consequences to Plaintiff. 126 . (Former Paragraph 180) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions' breaches of its duties and obligations, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiffs Home in the amount of $64,500 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiffs credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiff's career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity

Solutions .
127 . (Former Paragraph 181, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Bank of America consistently, wrongfully, outrageously, and with malice and intent frustrated Plaintiff's efforts, making it impossible under the circumstances for Plaintiff to sell Plaintiff's Home

-50-

DRIGINAI l
prior to a foreclosure sale by Defendant Wells Fargo or Defendant Bank of America . Defendant Bank of America totally disregarded its duties of trust and confidence to Plaintiff, its confidential relations with Plaintiff, and Georgia public policy favoring the preservation and safeguarding of Plaintiff's equity of redemption, abusing the power included in the Bank of America Security Deed in the process . The totality of these circumstances reveals a specific, ongoing intent of Defendant Bank of America to cause harm to Plaintiff . Such behavior was intentional, willful, malicious, extreme, outrageous, and beyond the bounds of decency and what is tolerable in a civilized society . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of America's outrageous and intolerable behavior, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm and damage consisting of severe emotional distress and suffering . In the event Defendant Fidelity Solutions joined in Defendant Bank of America's outrageous and intolerable behavior with a intentional, malicious and willful intent to cause harm to Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Fidelity Solutions' own outrageous and intolerable behavior, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm and damage consisting of severe emotional distress and suffering. 128 . (Former Paragraph 182) The foregoing aggravating circumstances make an award of punitive damages against Defendant Bank of America proper in

- bl -

ORIGINAL
favor of Plaintiff Defendant Bank of America acted with a specific intent to harm Plaintiff and succeeded in causing such harm to Plaintiff . 129 . (Former Paragraph 183, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) As a result of the following aggravating circumstances, an award of punitive damages to Plaintiff against Defendant Fidelity Solutions is appropriate : As Defendant Bank of America's agent or as Bank of America's transferee, Defendant Fidelity Solutions acted with an entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences to Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to suffer harm and damages. In the alternative , with a specific intent to cause harm to Plaintiff, Defendant Fidelity Solutions willfully and wantonly joined in the scheme of Defendant Bank of America to (i) as described above, frustrate Plaintiff's efforts, (ii) as described
below, disregard the obligations of trust and confidence and the duty to disclose

confidences imposed on Defendant Bank of America and, if Defendant Fidelity Solutions was a transferee, on Defendant Fidelity Solutions, (iii) as described below, abused the power contained in the Bank of America Security Deed, and (iv) joined in the misrepresentation of the actual bidding environment to Plaintiff . 130 . (Former Paragraph 184) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions acted in bad faith when they cancelled the foreclosure sale

-G2-

ORIGINAL
scheduled for January 7, 2003, and failed to bid on and purchase Plaintiff's Home

on March 4, 2003, all in violation of the obligations of trust and confidence, duties attendant to confidential relations, and Georgia public policy, thereby causing Plaintiff to forfeit the equity in Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O.C .G.A . § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT IX (FORMER COUNT XVI ) AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA PROMI SSORY ESTOPPEL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
13 1 . (Former Paragraph 185, as Modified by this Verified Second

Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 130
by reference as if fully rewritten . 132 . (Former Paragraph 186, as Modified by this Verified Second

Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Bank of America on several occasions stated to Plaintiff it would buy Plaintiff's Home at foreclosure when Defendant Wells Fargo would sell it . Such statements were of a character that Defendant Bank of America knew or reasonably should have known that at the time of the sale of Plaintiff's Home by Defendant Wells Fargo on March 4, 2003,

-63-

ORIGINAL
Plaintiff would rely upon those statements and would refrain from taking any action, legal or otherwise, to protect Plaintiffs equity in Plaintiff's Home, which was the security and collateral for the debt pursuant to the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed . Plaintiff did so rely on those statements and refrained from taking any action to protect Plaintiff's equity . As a result of such reliance, Plaintiff suffered damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff's Home in the amount of $64,500 or more . 133 . (Former Paragraph 187) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to either (i) an award from Defendant Bank of America in the amount of $64,500 or (ii) an order canceling the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed . 134. (Former Paragraph 188, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith
when they failed to follow through on the representations made by Defendant Bank

of America, cancelled the foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2003, and failed to bid on and purchase Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, thereby causing Plaintiff to forfeit the equity in Plaintiff's Home . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A. § 13-b-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT X (FORMER COUNT XVIT
-64-

ORIGINAL
AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND, IF FIDELITY SOLUTIONS WAS A TRANSFEREE OF BANK OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT FIDELITY SOLUTIONS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CANCELLING DEBT EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 135 . (Former Paragraph 189, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 134 by reference as if fully rewritten .

136. (Former Paragraph 190, as Modified by the 2°d Amend ., as Modified
by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby prays for a declaratory judgment against Defendant Bank of America and, if Defendant Fidelity Solutions was a transferee of Defendant Bank of America, against Defendant Fidelity Solutions canceling the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed and requiring the return of the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed marked "Paidin-Full" or "Canceled" or the equivalent, for the following reasons : a. Plaintiff s obligations were fully satisfied; b. One or both Defendants failed to take action to defend and secure Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiff's home, which formed the security and collateral for the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America

-65-

ORIGINAL
Security Deed, and, therefore, waived all rights to be paid pursuant to those instruments ; and/or c. One or both Defendants failed to take action to defend and secure Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiff's home, which formed the security and collateral for the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed, and, therefore, are estopped from asserting all rights to
be paid pursuant to those instruments . 137 . (Former Paragraph 191) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant

Fidelity Solutions acted in bad faith when they cancelled the foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2003, and failed to bid on and purchase Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, thereby causing Plaintiff to forfeit the equity in Plaintiff's Home and destroying the collateral and security for the Bank of America Agreement and
Bank of America Security Deed . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to

O.C.G.A. § 13-6- 1 1 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XI (FORMER COUNT XVIII) AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA AND, IF FIDELITY SOLUTIONS WAS A TRANSFEREE OF BANK OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT FIDELITY SOLUTIONS

-66-

ORIGINAL
BREACH OF CONTRACT, IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, AND DUTIES IMPOSED BY O .C .G.A § 44-14-3 EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 138 . (Former Paragraph 192, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 137 by reference as if fully rewritten . 139 . (Former Paragraph 193) In the event Plaintiff's obligations pursuant to the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed were fully satisfied, Defendant Bank of America and, if Defendant Fidelity Solutions was a transferee of Defendant Bank of America, Defendant Fidelity Solutions (i) breached the terms and conditions of the Bank of America Security Deed, which provided that one or both Defendants would release the Bank of America Security Deed upon payment in full ; (ii) breached the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, which would require one or both Defendants, in good conscience, to release, cancel and return the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed ; and (iii) violated the provisions of O .C.G .A. § 44-14-3, which would require one or both Defendants to cancel, release and return the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed .

-67-

ORIGINAL
240 . (Former Paragraph 194) Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions acted in bad faith when they refused to provide Plaintiff with an updated account statement and an accounting specifying the debt, if any, remaining to be paid pursuant to the Bank of America Agreement, by which Plaintiff could determine if the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed should be released, cancelled and returned to Plaintiff . In addition, they were unnecessarily stubborn and litigious . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XII (FORMER COUNT An AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA LIBEL
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

PUNITIVE DAMAGES
EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 141 . (Former Paragraph 198, as Modified by this Verified Second
Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 140

by reference as if fully rewritten .

-68-

ORIGINAL
142 . (Former Paragraph 199, as Modified by this Verified Second

Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Bank of America reported a foreclosure to Plaintiff's credit histories at Experian, a consumer reporting agency . Thereafter, when Defendant Bank of America cancelled the foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2003, it reinstated the Bank of America Agreement debt, making the written report of foreclosure to Experian false . With full knowledge that the false report of a foreclosure pursued by Defendant Bank of America would be sent by Experian to Plaintiff's creditors and potential creditors, Defendant Bank of America failed, even after notice from Plaintiff and/or Experian, to update the reports and remove the false and libelous information from the Experian credit history, evidencing actual malice and a specific intent to harm Plaintiff .
143 . (Former Paragraph 200, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) As a direct and proximate result of Defendant

Bank of America's written publication of the false reports to Experian that it had foreclosed on Plaintiff s Home, which reports were re-published by Experian to Plaintiff's creditors and potential creditors, which denied credit to Plaintiff, and possibly to the Georgia Office of Bar Admissions, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm and damages to (i) Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing and (ii)

-69-

ORIC7 INA L
Plaintiff s career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Bank of

America.
144 . (Former Paragraph 201) Defendant Bank of America consistently, wrongfully, outrageously, and with malice and intent frustrated Plaintiff s efforts, making it impossible under the circumstances for Plaintiff to sell Plaintiff s Home prior to a foreclosure sale by Defendant Wells Fargo or Defendant Bank of America . Defendant Bank of America totally disregarded its duties of trust and confidence to Plaintiff, its confidential relations w ith Plaintiff, and Georgia public policy favoring the preservation and safeguarding of Plaintiff's equity of redemption, abusing the power included in the Bank of America Security Deed in the process . Moreover, Defendant Bank of America intentionally and maliciously allowed a false report of a foreclosure pursued by Defendant Bank of America to
remain on Plaintiff's credit history with Experian, knowing such report would be

sent to Plaintiff's creditors and potential creditors . The totality of these circumstances reveals a specific, ongoing intent of Defendant Bank of America to cause harm to Plaintiff. Such behavior was intentional, willful, malicious, extreme, outrageous, and beyond the bounds of decency and what is tolerable in a civilized society . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bank of

-70-

DRIBI~1~4L
America's outrageous and intolerable behavior, Plaintiff suffered substantial harm and damage consisting of severe emotional distress and suffering . 145 . (Former Paragraph 202) As a result of the foregoing aggravating circumstances, an award of punitive damages should be made against Defendant Bank of America in favor of Plaintiff . Defendant Bank of America acted with a specific intent to cause harm to Plaintiff and did cause such harm . 146 . (Former Paragraph 203) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith when it published false and libelous statements about Plaintiff . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XIII (FORMER COUNT XXI ) AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA FOR FINAL AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUIRING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA TO (I) REMOVE LIBELOUS STATEMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF'S CREDIT HISTORY AND {II} REPORT THE BANK OF AMERICA AGREEMENT ACCOUNT AS "PAID IN FULL" EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 147 . (Former Paragraph 204, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 146 by reference as if fully rewritten .

-71-

ORIGINAL
X48 . (Former Paragraph 205) Plaintiff is entitled to a final and permanent

injunction and hereby prays for an order from this Court requiring Defendant Bank of America to (i) remove all libelous statements made to consumer reporting agencies from Plaintiffs credit histories ; (ii) report the Bank of America Agreement account to the consumer reporting agencies as "Paid in Full" ; and (iii) return the Bank of America Agreement and Bank of America Security Deed to Plaintiff marked "Paid-in-Full" or "Canceled" or the equivalent . 149. (Former Paragraph 206) Defendant Bank of America acted in bad faith when it refused to correct the false and inaccurate reports made to Plaintiff's credit histories maintained at the consumer reporting agencies . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O .C.G.A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XIV (FORMER COUNT XXII ) AGAINST DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (BREACH OF CONTRACT) IN SELLING PLAINTIFF'S HOME EXPENSES OF LITIGATION

-72-

DRIGINA
150. (Former Paragraph 207, as Modified by this Verified Second
Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 149

by reference as if fully rewritten . 151 . (Former Paragraph 208, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Pursuant to Georgia law, duties of good faith and fair dealing were a part of the Wells Fargo Note and Wells Fargo Security Deed. Those duties obligated Defendant Wells Fargo to exercise the power of sale included in the Wells Fargo Security Deed in a manner to defend, safeguard and protect Plaintiff's equity in Plaintiff's Home . Defendant Wells Fargo breached those duties when it cancelled the foreclosure sale on January 7, 2003, and thereafter, even though Defendant Wells Fargo had previously received notice that the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was at least $234,900, sold Plaintiff s
Home at foreclosure on March 4, 2003, for $183,500, when circumstances were

such that Defendant Wells Fargo knew, or in the alternative, had every reason to know, through the absence of Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions as bidders, that the bidding environment had been chilled and the optimal price would not be secured in the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale . At the time of the sale of Plaintiff's Home, Defendant Wells Fargo knew of the Bank of America Security Deed, which held a second priority position to the first priority position

73 -

ORIGINAL
held by the Wells Fargo Security Deed . Nevertheless, Defendant Wells Fargo disregarded those circumstances, and with full knowledge that Plaintiff would lose the equity in Plaintiff's Home, which formed the security and collateral for the Bank of America Note and Bank of America Security Deed, and sold Plaintiff's Home for the minimal and inadequate price of $183,500, which equaled or approximated the sum owed to Defendant Wells Fargo by Plaintiff at that time . 152 . (Paragraph 208-A, Added by the 2nd Amend ., as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) In addition, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank breached the statutes, regulations and VA procedures governing VA home mortgage loans, all of which were incorporated into the Wells Fargo Note and Wells Fargo Security Deed by reference, by (i) failing to contact Defendant Bank of America as a junior lien holder, in an attempt to get Defendant Bank of
America to protect its junior lien position and collateral by paying off the balance

due pursuant to the Wells Fargo Note and Wells Fargo Security Deed and (ii)

failing to communicate the appraised value returned by the 2002 VA Appraisal, $235,000, to Defendant Bank of America .
153 . (Former Paragraph 209) The fair market value of Plaintiffs Home at the time of such breaches was approximately $248,000 . Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiffs Home in the amount of $64,500 or

-74-

DRlG1NA1
more, (ii) damages to Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiffs career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to Defendant . 154 . (Former Paragraph 210, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Wells Fargo acted in bad faith when it cancelled the foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs Home scheduled for January 7, 2003, and, with prior knowledge that the fair market value of Plaintiffs Home was at least $234,900, thereafter sold Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, with knowledge that the competitive bidding environment for Plaintiff's Home had been chilled, for only enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs debt to Defendant Wells Fargo . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O.C .G .A. § 13-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XV FORMER COUNT XXII I) AGAINST DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO NEGLIGENCE IN SELLING PLAINTIFF'S HOME EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 155 . (Former Paragraph 21 1, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 154 by reference as if fully rewritten .

_ 75 ..

ORIGINAL
156 . (Former Paragraph 212, as Modified by this Verified Second
Amended and Restated Complaint) Pursuant to O .C.G.A. § 23-2-114, Defendant

Wells Fargo was obligated to exercise the power of sale contained in the Wells
Fargo Security Deed fairly . That duty obligated Defendant Wells Fargo to refrain

from exercising the power of sale included in the Wells Fargo Security Deed whenever it had knowledge or reason to know of circumstances indicating the bidding environment for Plaintiff's Home had been chilled . Defendant Wells Fargo breached that duty when it cancelled the foreclosure sale on January 7, 2003, and thereafter, even though Defendant Wells Fargo had previously received notice that the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was at least $234,900, negligently sold Plaintiff's Home at foreclosure on March 4, 2003, for $183,500, when circumstances were such that Defendant Wells Fargo knew, or in the alternative,
had every reason to know, through the absence of Defendant Bank of America and

Defendant Fidelity Solutions as bidders, that the bidding environment had been

chilled and the optimal price would not be secured in the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale .
157. (Paragraph 212-A, Added by the 2'~d Amend ., as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) In addition, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank breached that duty by violating the statutes, regulations and VA

-76-

ORIGINAL
procedures governing VA home mortgage loans by (i) failing to contact Defendant Bank of America as a junior lien holder, in an attempt to get Defendant Bank of America to protect its junior lien position and collateral by paying off the balance
due pursuant to the Wells Fargo Note and Wells Fargo Security Deed and (ii)

failing to communicate the appraised value returned by the 2002 VA Appraisal, $235,000, to Defendant Bank of America . It also breached that duty by failing to notify Defendant Bank of America of the March 4, 2003, foreclosure sale, as required by Georgia statutes . 158 . (Former Paragraph 213, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 23-2-110, duties and obligations of trust and confidence were the foundation for and therefore, a part of the power of sale included in the Wells Fargo Security Deed . Such duties and
obligations required Defendant Wells Fargo to act with special care, with

consideration given for the protection of Plaintiff and the preservation of Plaintiff's equity in Plaintif'f's Home, when deciding when to exercise the power of sale and whether or not to exercise the power of sale . Implicit in O.C .G.A . § 23-2-112 was a duty on Defendant Wells Fargo to refrain from abusing the power of sale . On January 7, 2003, Defendant Wells Fargo breached those duties and obligations when it negligently cancelled the foreclosure sale . On March 4, 2003, Defendant

77-

ORIGINAL
Wells Fargo again breached those duties and obligations when, with prior knowledge the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was at least $234,900 or more, it negligently sold Plaintiffs Home at foreclosure for $183,500, when circumstances were such that Defendant Wells Fargo knew, or in the alternative, had every reason to know, through the absence of Defendant Bank of America and Defendant Fidelity Solutions as bidders, that the bidding environment had been chilled and the optimal price would not be secured . The breaches of those duties and obligations gave Plaintiff a right of action against Defendant Wells Fargo pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 51-1-19 .
159 . (Former Paragraph 214) At the time of the sale of Plaintiff's Home,

Defendant Wells Fargo knew of the Bank of America Security Deed, which held a second priority position to the first priority position held by the Wells Fargo Security Deed . Nevertheless, Defendant Wells Fargo disregarded those circumstances, and with full knowledge that Plaintiff would lose the equity in Plaintiff's Home, which formed the security and collateral for the Bank of America Note and Bank of America Security Deed, and sold Plaintiff s Home for the minimal and inadequate price of $183,500, which equaled or approximated the sum owed to Defendant Wells Fargo by Plaintiff at that time .

-78-

ORIGINAL
160. (Former Paragraph 215, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) The fair market value of Plaintiff s Home at the time of such breaches was approximately $248,000 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Wells Fargo's breaches of its duties and obligations, Plaintiff suffered (i) damages in the form of lost equity in Plaintiff s Home in the amount of $64,500 or more, (ii) damages to Plaintiff's credit reputation and standing, and (iii) damages to Plaintiff's career, all of which were reasonably foreseeable to

Defendant.
161 . (Former Paragraph 216, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Defendant Wells Fargo acted in bad faith when it cancelled the foreclosure sale of Plaintiff's Home scheduled for January 7, 2003, and, with prior knowledge that the fair market value of Plaintiff's Home was at
least $234,900, with knowledge that the competitive bidding environment for

Plaintiff's Home had been chilled, thereafter, in an abuse of the power of sale, sold Plaintiff's Home on March 4, 2003, for only enough funds to satisfy Plaintiff s debt to Defendant Wells Fargo . Plaintiff is therefore entitled pursuant to O.C .G.A. § 135-6-11 to an award of his costs of litigation, including without limitation attorney's fees and costs . COUNT XVI (FORMER COUNT XXIV
-79-

ORIGINAL
AGAINST DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT IN SELLING PLAINTIFF'S HOME WILLFUL, WANTON AND RECKLESS MISCONDUCT IN SELLING PLAINTIFF'S HOME WITH CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES TO PLAINTIFF PUNITIVE DAMAGES EXPENSES OF LITIGATION 162. (Former Paragraph 217, as Modified by this Verified Second Amended and Restated Complaint) Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 161 by reference as if fully rewritten . 163 . (Former Paragraph 218) When Defendant Wells Fargo breached the duty to exercise fairly the power of sale contained in the Wells Fargo Security Deed, which duty was imposed by O.C.G.A. § 23-2-114, it did so intentionally with knowledge of the resulting consequences to Plaintiff.
164 . (Former Paragraph 219) When Defendant Wells Fargo breached the

duty to exercise fairly the power of sale contained in the Wells Fargo Security Deed, which duty was imposed by O .C .G .A. § 23-2-114, it did so willfully, wantonly, and recklessly, with a conscious indifference to the resulting consequences to Plaintiff. 165 . (Former Paragraph 220) In each instance when Defendant Wells

Fargo breached the duties of trust and confidence, which duties were a part of the

-80-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful