You are on page 1of 29


Appellant seeks an oral argument in this matter as it will afford the appellate
court the opportunity to gain a full comprehension of the true nature of the engineered
real estate boom/bust cycle ending in 2008, the subsequent unlawful fraudclosure
epidemic and how it affects the people within the Courts urisdiction! "ral Argument
would be of substantial #alue to the Court and in the interest of the people,
particularly in light of the fact that the underlying dispute is one sounding in equity!
$ennessee affords substantial respect to equity %urisdiction, ha#ing maintained a
separate and distinct Chancery Court, where the spirit of former Chancellor &enry '!
(ibson li#es on!
)! *hether the court erred in finding that +efendants/Appellees do not owe
,laintiff/Appellant a duty to produce a genuine claim with the requisite
elements, when attempting to collect on a purported obligation, including
initiating a non-%udicial foreclosure.
))! *hether the court erred in finding ,laintiff/Appellant did not state a claim for
which relief can be granted.
,laintiff/Appellant, #ia a declaratory %udgment suit filed in the equity court on
/ebruary 20, 2012 2Case 3o! 12C8804, Complaint, /eb! 20, 2012, '! p! 1, sought an
order and decree declaring that when a person2s4 makes a claim demanding money,
moneys worth, or a thing of #alue from a man or woman, said person2s4 produce a
genuine claim supported with strict proof! 5aid genuine claim consists of two 224
elements6 14 #erified chain of custody to the title 2legal and beneficial4 to the alleged
obligation and 24 #erified accounting, comporting with (enerally Accepted
Accounting ,rinciples 2(AA,4 and /inancial Accounting 5tandards 2/A54 170,
Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities, of all debits, credits and third party payments made for the benefit of
At the time of filing the original bill, /eb! 20, 2012, Appellant was without
knowledge that $ennessee still maintained a separate and distinct Chancery court, as
do the states of +elaware and 8ississippi! Appellant belie#ed at the time that the
Circuit Court was clothed with both equity and at law %urisdiction! )f the appellate
court finds relief for Appellant could not be granted due to mistakenly filing an
equitable bill in the Circuit Court, Appellant will re-file said case with the proper
caption in the Chancery Court!
$he declaration sought by Appellant is in alignment with the clean hands
doctrine and the equitable ma9im :he who seeks equity, must do equity;!
Appellant, in alignment with and in support of the declaratory %udgment suit,
filed a separate <erified ,etition for ,roduction of +ocuments on 8arch =, 2012 2Case
3o! 12C08>4!
Case 12C880 was remo#ed to /ederal Court, "rder 'emo#! April 2?, 201?, '!
p! 1>! Case 12C880 was remanded to state court on uly @, 201?! 8emo and "rder,
uly 2, 201?, '! p! 1=! "n 5eptember 0, 201? the Circuit Court consolidated the cases!
"rder, 5ept! 0, 201?, '! p! 81!
)n 'emo#al, the +efendants/ Appellees alleged that the Complaint sought
+eclaratory udgment on #arious /ederal claims including $ruth-in-Aending
2:$)AA;4 and 'eal Bstate 5ettlement ,rocedures Act 2:'B5,A!;4
Appellant successfully disputed this mischaracteriCation, claiming that pro#ing
#iolations of those Acts was incidental to the state court suit seeking a declaratory
%udgment in an equity court! $he federal court agreed, resulting in remand to state
court! 2ibid '! p! 814
After remand, the equity court heard arguments on 8otions to +ismiss on
August 1>, 201? and instructed ,laintiff/ Appellant to file an Amended Complaint,
which was filed on "ctober 1@, 201?! 1
Amend Comp!, "ct! 1@, 201?, '! p! 8@!
$he court heard arguments on the 8otions to +ismiss and instructed ,laintiff to
file a 5econd Amended Complaint, which was filed on anuary >, 2017! 2
Comp!, an! >, 2017, '! p! 1=0! $he court held a hearing on +efendant2s4 8otion2s4 to
+ismiss Appellants 5econd Amended Complaint on 8arch 17, 2017!
"n April 1=, 2017 the court entered an order dismissing Appellants case!
"rder, Apr! 1=, 2017, '! p! 2?>! "n April 2@, 2017 Appellant filed a 8otion to
'econsider +ismissal! 8otion for 'elief, Apr! 2@, 2017, '! p! 27@! 5aid motion was
denied without a hearing! "rder, 8ay 17, 2017, '! p! 2@1! Appellant timely filed a
3otice of Appeal! 3otice, 8ay 28, 2017, '! p! 2@7!
I. Defendants/Appellees Do Oe Pla!nt!ff/Appellant a D"t# To P$od"%e A
Gen"!ne Cla!&
$he Court correctly recogniCed ,laintiffs ,rimary Argument as being the
following6 :+efendants are 8andated to ,roduce a Dona /ide Claim and /ailed in
that +uty,; yet, in error, ultimately went on to find, in its April 1=, 2017 "pinion and
"rder 2ibid '! p! 2?>46
:$he Court is unaware of any requirement for +efendants to produce
documents prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings!;
/or those following the golden rule 2:do unto others as one would ha#e done to
them;, not :he who has the gold makes the rules;4 seeking a declaration-- that before
a person makes a claim on a man or woman, that the claimant be in possession of and
produce e#idence of a genuine claim-- seems ridiculously self e#ident to reasonable
&owe#er, its well known public knowledge that banks and their attorneys
systematically and routinely #iolate the golden rule, as e#eryone else is e9pected to
follow to ensure society does not self implode! Aike the hypocritical parent that says
:Edo as ) say, not as ) doE; banks and their attorneys e9pect the rest of society to
follow the golden rule--e9cept for them!
$he preceding statement is not a fictitious bald allegation, it is fact! $hat fact is
supported by the o#erwhelming e#idence of banks and their attorneys filing false,
forged, fabricated and/or fraudulent documents and instruments in public land records
and court cases across the country! Any reasonable person attempting to rebut the
preceding statement would be made to look like an instantaneous idiot! $he e#idence
is found in the first amended equitable bill for +eclaratory udgment 2ibid '! p! 8@4 at
page 7 and F! 5! +ept! of ustice press release 2ibid '! p! 1=04 at p! 7 in the second
amended bill, an e9cerpt of which follows6
Aorraine Drown, former ,resident of +ocG, the document mill utiliCed by
fraudclosure mills across the country to create entire fabricated :loan; files
out of thin air for H0@ 2including a fraudulent :original; note4, is now in %ail
for admitting to being responsible for forging, falsifying, and/or fabricating
o#er one million 21,000,0004 documents and instruments! $he number is
most likely ten times that amount! Case details are found in United States
of America v. Lorraine Brown, Case 3o! ?612-cr-108--2@ 8C', 28!+!
$hese forged mortgage documents were distributed to %o"nt# land $e%o$d!n'
off!%es and state %o"$ts all o#er the country!
$his scheme was part of the giant bundle of !lle'al %ond"%t known as
foreclosure fraud! According to statements of fact from the ustice
+epartment, from 200? to 2000 +ocG recorded o#er one million fake
documents! $hats p$o(a(l# a lo n"&(e$! +ocG wasnt %ust forging
signaturesI they were fa($!%at!n' ent!$e loan f!les! +uring the bubble years,
they created a now-infamous &o$t'a'e fa($!%at!on p$!%e s)eet* where
mortgage ser#icers, who )ad t$o"(le p$o+!n' !n %o"$t that they owned the
homes they wanted to put into foreclosure, could p"$%)ase* at lo p$!%es,
)ate+e$ do%"&ents t)e# needed! $o :Re%$eate Ent!$e Collate$al F!le,;
basically the whole set of documents !n%l"d!n' t)e p$o&!sso$# note. $hat
would set a ser#icer back ,-..//!
)n the conte9t of the current fraudclosure crisisKe#en more rampant in non-
%udicial foreclosure states such as $ennessee-- to entertain the erroneous :opinion;
of the trial court that, when challenged, there is no requirement to be in possession
of and no duty to produce a genuine claim prior to initiating foreclosure
proceedings, would lead to the following scenario playing out o#er and o#er again!
5aid scenario would make a mockery of the :%ust-us; system, causing chaos and
massi#e disturbance of the peace! )magine ifE!
udge ohn +oe finishes a day of work on the bench of the Circuit Court of
+a#idson County, and returns home to recei#e a :bill; in the mail from Acme
Carpet Company 2:Acme;4 for H10,7@?!22! Acme claims to ha#e installed
H8,000 worth of carpet in the home of udge +oe!
Acme claims to ha#e sent prior demands for payment to udge +oe! udge +oe
has ne#er heard of Acme, and has no contract with Acme!
)n addition to the H8,000 of carpet installed in udge +oes home, Acmes
claims includes additional line item :e9penses; of :in-house collection fees; of
H08=, :administrati#e fees; of H?0=, and attorneys fees of H1,0>0!22!
udge +oe ser#es a demand for #alidation of the purported :debt; Acme claims
is due and owing down to the last penny! Acme ignores udge +oes demand
for proof of claim!
udge +oe sends a second demand for proof of claim, this time copying the
"ffice of $he $ennessee Attorney (eneral! Acme ignores udge +oes second
demand for proof of claim!
udge +oe surmises the claim was bogus, puts it on the list of :things to do;
and goes on about udge +oes life!
)magine udge +oes surprise when udge +oe returns home from a long day
on the bench of the Circuit Court of +a#idson County, to find a letter sent #ia
certified mail from the same law firm who was attempting to collect the alleged
:debt; on behalf of Acme months ago!
)nside the letter udge +oe finds a :3otice of 5ale;! Attached to the 3otice of
5ale is a copy of a lien filed on the land records of +a#idson County for failure
to :pay; the alleged amount Acme claimed to be due and owing!
)nfuriated, udge +oe sues Acme and the crooked attorney who made a bogus
claim, after Acme was gi#en multiple opportunities to pro#e its claim, and
failed to do so!
8uch to udge +oes surprise, udge +oe is informed that because there is
purported :self authenticating public record e#idence; of the alleged lien on
the land records, the land records dont lie, so the debt must be legitimate!
"therwise, why would Acme and their attorney file a lien if they could not
pro#e their claim.
/urther, since the lien is public record e#idence, Acme and their attorney are
told by the presiding udge 8c/air, that Acme does not ha#e to pro#ide any
further :e#idence; that the alleged :debt; claimed to be due and owing to
Acme from udge +oe is :#alid;!
udge 8c/air says :the lien says what it says, so it must be #alid;
$he abo#e scenario is real and particulariCed for some people in 8aryland who
are forced to e9pend time and money challenging purported :debts; absent any
foundation or strict proof 2emphasis in bold4!
:An affida#it %udgment for more than H0,000 had been filed in 1000, along
with a writ of wage garnishment, but she sa#s s)e ne+e$ )ea$d a(o"t !t
"nt!l e!')t #ea$s late$.
Angered that they could be held $espons!(le fo$ a de(t t)e# 0ne not)!n'
a(o"tKand that had been documented with little more than a computer printout
of Ae#ys name and 5ocial 5ecurity numberKthe couple de%!ded to f!')tE!
In a hearing before Baltimore Circuit Judge Lynn Stewart Le!y
railed about the in"u#tice$ %&hey made these allegations, but
they havent proven anything,' Le!y #aid$ %&hey throw one
)iece of )a)er and )ut it with another and #ay you owe
$he abo#e scenario is also #ery real and particulariCed for former *est <irginia
&ouse 8inority Aeader and sitting Circuit Court udge ames ! 'owe, articulated in
Appellants /irst Amended Complaint 2ibid '! p! 8@4 at p! ? :5ummary of Action; to
:$he most glaring e9ample in direct support of ,laintiffs un-rebutted
claims, e#idencing a pattern and practice of not only making a bogus claim, but
direct retaliation against a homeowner when demand is made to produce a
bona fide claim, is the case of owe, et. al., v. Aurora !ommercial !or"., et
al., F!5! +ist! Ct!, 5o! +is! of *! <a! at Charleston, Case 3o! @61?-c#-21?>0!
*est <irginia Circuit Court udge, and former &ouse 8inority Aeader,
ames ! 'owe and has wife were the #ictim/sub%ect of yet another fraudclosure
scam perpetrated by 3ationstar!
C&A'AB5$"3 L A (reenbrier County circuit %udge and his
wife are suing Aurora Commercial Corp! Mand othersN for
allegedly en'a'!n' !n p$edato$# lend!n' p$a%t!%es!
:*e tried repeatedly to reach out to them for weeks, but couldnt
get a response,; a#ins said! :3ationstar has tried to enforce
terms and conditions that the 'owes did not agree to and t)!s
as t)e onl# t)!n' left to do to p$ese$+e t)e!$ $!')ts!;
/ull details can be found on ,ACB', in both the initial and Amended
Complaint in owe! $he summary of the case, as directly related to the instant
case, is that udge 'owe realiCed he was getting swindled when the rate on the
purported :loan; changed drastically upon alleged transfer to a new alleged
:ser#icer; 23ationstar4!
udge 'owe, being a prudent consumer who did not slumber on his
rights, demanded a #erified audit and accounting, %ust as ,laintiff did three
years ago!
)nstead of producing the bona fide claim supported with a #erified audit
and accounting 2which they cannot produce4, 3ationstar ser#ed a bogus 3otice
of +efault on udge 'owe, as a first step in an unlawful fraudclosure to co#er
up their crimes! $his conduct is a common pattern and practice of the
beginnings of a co#er-up!
3ot only did Aurora and 3ationstar attempt to defraud udge 'owe and
his wife, it was also disco#ered that 2 different copies of purported :original;
notes were disco#ered with fraudulent signatures of both udge 'owe and his
wife! :
)nstead of Acme Carpet, Aurora Aoan 5er#icing and 3ationstar 8ortgage were
the :persons; making unsubstantiated claims on the udge and his wife! )f the shoe
were on the other foot, and an unsubstantiated claim was made on a bank by a
consumer, that bank would be squealing like stuck pig to dismiss said claim absent
strict proof! )ts a two way street and the landmark case #oose v. #ander is rele#ant
and persuasi#e!
*hat Appellant seeks is so ridiculously simple and equitable, it gi#es pause to a
reasonable person to wonder why the :court; keeps attempting to tell Appellant :we
ha#e no idea what you want, and no idea what you are talking about;! $he claim by
the equity court that :we dont know what you want; is akin 2in re#erse4 to the Oafka
story :$he $rial; in which Anthony &opkins, in the screen adaptation of the book, is
taken off to his e9ecution, but is still uncertain of the :charge; against him! $he term
:Oafkaesque; is directly applicable to the :court; claiming they ha#e no idea what
Appellant is talking about!
$he preceding statement is supported by the following e9cerpts from the
5econd Amended Complaint 2ibid, '! p! 1=04 at pp! 1-26
p! 1- A declaratory %udgment is an equitable remedy that ser#es to terminate
the uncertainty or contro#ersy gi#ing rise to a proceeding, and to determine
some status, right, pri#ilege, or immunity between parties with antagonistic
claims and or legal relations!
$his purpose is stated #ery clearly by 3eal /! *einrich, Bsq! in
$eclarator% &udgment Actions' (hen Are The% A""ro"riate) 2emphasis in
:+eclaratory relief is appropriate when a litigant needs d!$e%t!on f$o& a
%o"$t before ta0!n' f"t"$e a%t!on! 5uch direction will afford the litigant
$el!ef f$o& "n%e$ta!nt# o$ !nse%"$!t#! 5ee Amer. *ousehold +roducts, ,nc.
v. Evans -anufacturing, ,nc!, 1?0 /!5upp!2d 12?@, 12?0 23!+! Al! 20014!;
$he o(1e%t of t)e de%la$ato$# 1"d'&ent is to permit determination of a
contro#ersy (efo$e o(l!'at!ons a$e $ep"d!ated o$ $!')ts a$e +!olated! As
many times pointed out by this court, its purpose is to permit one who is
walking in the dark to ascertain where he is and where he is going, to turn
on the light before he steps rather than after he has stepped in a hole! !ox v.
Athens eg. -ed. !ent., 2=0 (a! App! @8>, @07, >?1 5!B!2d =02, =00
/urther support for the right to seek the #ery specific declaration Appellant
sought from the court is found in the udicial 3otice, ud3otice, /eb! >, 2017, '! p!
2?7 filed in the equity court on > /ebruary 2017, e9cerpt below6
)t was clearly and unambiguously the intent of ,laintiff
MAppellantN, under the doctrine of election, to in#oke the inherent
equity %urisdiction of the Circuit Court! A de%la$ato$# 1"d'&ent
!s an e2"!ta(le $e&ed# t)at !s not open to o(1e%t!on! $he
following e9cerpt from the 5upreme Court Act of 5outh Australia P
?1 destroys any fri#olous ob%ection to the declaration ,laintiff is
seeking! *hile not controlling, Australia follows the common law
and equity courts of Bngland as the Fnited 5tates has adopted at
the time of the American 'e#olution! $he following e9cerpt is not
only ad#isory but e9tremely compelling to wit 2emphasis in bold46
No a%t!on o$ p$o%eed!n' s)all (e open to o(1e%t!on on the ground that a
merely de%la$ato$# 1"d'&ent o$ o$de$ !s so"')t thereby, and the %o"$t
s)all )a+e poe$ to &a0e (!nd!n' de%la$at!ons of $!')t whether any
%onse2"ent!al $el!ef !s o$ %o"ld (e %la!&ed o$ not!
$he /lorida Appellate Courts stated that Appellate Courts shall do equity! $his
Court is well ad#ised to take this Appellate +ecision into consideration as it is
persuasi#e and conforms to the equity ma9ims! 2emphasis in bold46
5ome argue that a court of equity is a legal relic! All %o"$ts of appeal
a$e $e2"!$ed to do e2"!t#! 5ometimes that requires us to order that
something be done which is %ust and equitable! ,ut differently, it is the
ma9im Qequity will do what ought to be done!Q W!t)o"t e2"!ta(le
!nte$+ent!on* t)e !ll of t)e people !ll (e s!len%ed! Sterling v. Brevard
!ount%, 2/la!App! @ +ist! 11-1=-20004 (eneral (ene 5terling, et al,
Appellants, #! Dre#ard County, /lorida, et al!, Appellees! 3o! @+00-@=8!
+istrict Court of Appeal of /lorida, /ifth +istrict! "pinion filed
3o#ember 1=, 2000!
Appellant further stated in ,laintiff/Appellants "pposition to +efendant 8R$
Danks 8otion for 8ore +efinite 5tatement6
+efendants had a duty to comply with said disco#ery requests and
#alidation of a purported claim per federal mandates as defined in 1@
F!5!C! and 12 F!5!C!, per 'B5,A, $)AA, /+C,A and commercial law as
codified in $enn! Code P7=! 2$rial Court +kt! 20, 8ay 11, 20124!
)n essence the Court is stating that foreclosure proceedings, %udicial or
non-%udicial, may be initiated at any point in time by any :person; absent
meeting any of the conditions precedent and absent being in possession
of a genuine claim! As noted by rele#ant and well-established case law in
the 5i9th Circuit, howe#er, such is not the 'ule of Aaw or equity!
A. S!3t) C!$%"!t State and Fede$al La S"ppo$ts Pla!nt!ff/Appellant4s
De&and fo$ A%%o"nt!n'* P$oof of Stand!n' and Real Pa$t#5!n5Inte$est.
-c!arth% v. Ban. of America contains an identical fact pattern and this court
should follow the persuasi#e law from that %urisdiction, as well as the law from
Federal *ome Loan -ortgage !or"oration v. Schwart/wald, 2012 "hio @01=
2"ctober ?1, 20124, Federal *ome Loan -ortgage !or"oration v. ufo 2012 "hio
@0?0 211
+ist! Ashtabula +ecember 1=, 20124 and BA! *ome Loans Servicing, L.+.
v. -a"", 012345hio40678 2$welfth +ist! uly 8 201?4! )n "hio in %ust o#er the past
year-- uly 8, 201? L $he $welfth Appellate +istrict ruled that the same e9act sort of
issues countenanced in this case merited a full e9position in BA! *ome Loans
Servicing, L.+. v. -a"", 012345hio40678 2$welfth +ist! uly 8 201?4 2emphasis in
"n "ctober 2@, 2012, 8app filed a motion for relief from %udgment
pursuant to Ci#!'! >02D4214, 2?4, and 2@4! 8app asserted three meritorious
defenses6 214 he was not properly credited with some of the mortgage
payments he madeI 224 documents attached to DACSs complaint were
forged, altered, or tampered withI and 2?4 DAC lacked standing to bring
the foreclosure action and/or was not the real party in interest!
8app also asserted that gi#en the forgery, alteration, or tampering of the
documents attached to DACSs complaint, he was entitled to relief under
Ci#!'! >02D42?4! /inally, 8app challenged the amount of damages
awarded by the trial court to DAC, pursuant to Ci#!'! >02D42@4, on the
ground the award was not supported by the record!
)n the case at bar, 8app alleged that DAC la%0ed stand!n' to f!le t)e
fo$e%los"$e %o&pla!nt because Co"nt$#!de no lon'e$ e3!sted when the
mortgage was MpurportedlyN assigned to DAC! $he trial court re%ected
8appSs allegation on the ground it was 8B'5, not Countrywide, that
assigned the mortgage to DAC! &owe#er, as 8app notes, the assignment
of mortgage clearly states6 Q28B'54 8ortgage Blectronic 'egistration
5ystems, )nc!, acting solel% as nominee for !ountr%wide Ban., FSB, 9 9 9
does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set o#er unto DAC &ome Aoans
5er#icing, A, T T T a certain mortgage deed T T T together with the
,romissory 3oteM!NQ 2Bmphasis added!4 $he t$!al %o"$t6s de%!s!on does
not add$ess Mapp6s alle'at!on t)at Co"nt$#!de no lon'e$ e3!sted
when 8B'5, Qacting solel% as nominee for !ountr%wide,Q assigned the
mortgage to DAC! $here is no e+!den%e !n t)e $e%o$d as to )en
Co"nt$#!de %eased to e3!st and/or was merged into Dank of
EEEE!!*e t)e$efo$e $e+e$se t)e t$!al %o"$t6s f!nd!n' t)at 78AC6s
alle'ed la%0 of stand!n' does not %onst!t"te a &e$!to$!o"s defenseQ and
remand the case to the trial court for a hearing to dete$&!ne 8AC6s
stand!n' to s"e, and correspondingly )et)e$ t)e t$!al %o"$t )ad
1"$!sd!%t!on o#er the foreclosure proceedings! "n remand, the trial court
must determine whether 8B'5 had the authority to assign the mortgage
and/or the note as the nominee for Countrywide in light of the claim that
Countrywide was no longer in e9istence when the mortgage was assigned
to DAC! )n this regard, we obser#e that Schwart/wald only requires a
party to establish an interest in either the note or the mortgage at the time
the complaint is filed in order to ha#e standing to prosecute a foreclosure
action! Schwart/wald, 1?7 "hio 5t! ?d 1?, 2012 "hio @01= at U 28, 0=0
3!B!2d 1217EEEE!!
EEE(i#en our holding on 8appSs first assignment of error, we decline
to address his second and third assignments of error as they are not ripe for
re#iew at this time! )f, upon remand, the trial court determines that DAC
had standing to file the foreclosure complaint, 8app may appeal that
decision and renew his arguments pertaining to the trial courtSs denial of
his Ci#!'! >02D4 motion, and in particular, the trial courtSs ruling on his
se#eral Ci#!'! >02D4 claims and &e$!to$!o"s defenses!
udgment $e+e$sed and $e&anded for further proceedings in accordance
with this opinion!
0hio-# well1re#)ected 2e!er Law 3irm note#4 &he deci#ion in 5a)) breathe# new life in
to ca#e# of homeowner# who were foreclo#ed u)on by ban6# with in#u7cient
im)ro)er or incorrect )a)erwor6$ 8hile it i# ad!antageou# to retain coun#el
immediately u)on recei!ing a notice of default or a foreclo#ure com)laint the 2e!er
Law 3irm under#tand# that many indi!idual# belie!ed that they were not able to do thi#
when they were 9r#t #er!ed$ htt)4::www$de!erlaw$com:fal;:.31the1ban61ha#1a1
F!5! +istrict Court udge +a#id +! +owd r! in "hios northern district 2 5i9th
Circuit4 chastised C&A5B Dank 3ational $rust Co! and Argent 8ortgage 5ecurities
)nc! in "ctober 200= for what he called their :ca#alier approach; and :take my word
for it; attitude toward pro#ing ownership of the mortgage note in a foreclosure case!
/ederal +istrict udge Christopher Doyko dismissed 17 foreclosure cases in
Cle#eland in 3o#ember 200= due to the inability of the trustee and the ser#icer to
pro#e ownership of the mortgages! ,n e Foreclosure !ases 2'1:!;!0080 through
1:!;!3106 23+ B+ "hio 200=4!
$he following e9cerpt from that Doyko ruling speaks #olumes and is squarely on
3e9t, 5i9th Circuit /ederal udge &olschuh followed suit6 ,n re Foreclosure
!ases, Case 3os! 0=-c#-1>>, 0=-c#-100, 0=-c#-22>, 0=-c#-2=0, 0=-c#-72?, 0=-c#-@?7,
0=-c#-@?>, 0=-c#->72, 0=-c#->=0, 0=-c#-=0>, 0=-c#-=17, 0=-c#-=2=, 0=-c#-=?1, 0=-
c#-0>?, 0=-c#-000, 0=-c#-107=, 0=-c#-1001, 0=-c#-1110, 0=-c#-11@0, F3)$B+
5$A$B5 +)5$')C$ C"F'$ /"' $&B 5"F$&B'3 +)5$')C$ "/ "&)",
BA5$B'3 +)<)5)"3, 200= F!5! +ist! ABG)5 00812, 3o#ember 2=, 200=, +ecided,
3o#ember 2=, 200=, /iled, +ismissed without pre%udice by )n re /oreclosure Cases,
200= F!5! +ist! ABG)5 0@>=? 25!+! "hio, +ec! 2=, 200=4!
)n +ayton, "hio /ederal udge $homas 'ose did the same thing as noted in the
3ew Vork $imes story :9"d'e De&ands Do%"&entat!on !n Fo$e%los"$es:
5imilar cases were dismissed during the past three years by %udges in
California, 8assachusetts, Oansas and 3ew Vork!
And &o$e $e%entl#;
Ban. of Am., <.A. v. Smith, 2017-"hio-287@6 Copies do not pro#e
ownership of a 3ote, 8ortgage/+eed of $rust nor do they confer the right to
)n order for a trial court to consider the content of a promissory note in a
foreclosure action, that note must be properly authenticated and admitted into the
record! $he 5i9th Appellate +istrict held that an affida#it that failed to properly
authenticate a promissory note in a foreclosure case precluded its consideration and
pre#ented summary %udgment in fa#or of the bank! *SB! -ortg. Servs., ,nc. v.
Edmon, >th +ist! Brie 3o! B-11-07>, 2012-"hio-7000, 2?I see also BA! *ome Loans
Servicing v. -oore, @th +ist! Aicking 3o! 12 CA @0, 2012-"hio->287, (achovia Ban.
of $elaware v. &ac.son, @th +ist! 5tark 3o! 2010-CA-00201, 2011-"hio-?20?, U ?0,
@?-@= 2emphasis in bold4!
)n its complaint, Dank of AmericaSs only claim that 5mith owed it
money arises from its allegation that 5mith breached the terms of the
promissory note! And 8an0 of A&e$!%a fa!led to p$ope$l# !nt$od"%e
t)e note !nto t)e $e%o$d to support its motion for summary %udgment!
$herefore, summary %udgment was improper as to that claim! )n this
case, there !s not)!n' f$o& t)e Ha&!lton Co"nt# Re%o$de$6s off!%e
%e$t!f#!n' t)at t)e p)oto%op# <of t)e Mo$t'a'e= as an a%%"$ate
$ep$od"%t!on of t)e o$!'!nal! $herefore, it does not qualify for self-
authentication pursuant to B#id!'! 002! W!t)o"t an aff!da+!t
attest!n' to !ts a"t)ent!%!t#* !t as not p$ope$l# (efo$e t)e t$!al
%o"$t! $herefore the trial court erred when it considered the mortgage
as e#idence when it granted Dank of AmericaSs motion for summary
8. Pe$s"as!+e La T)$o"')o"t t)e Co"nt$# S"ppo$ts Pla!nt!ff/Appellant4s
De&and fo$ A%%o"nt!n'* P$oof of Stand!n' and Real Pa$t#5!n5Inte$est.
$he Court obliquely referenced the persuasi#e law cited by ,laintiff/Appellant!
$here is further persuasi#e law from California, *ashington 5tate, 'hode )sland and
$e9asKnon %udicial foreclosure states like $ennessee6 +emanding a #erified
accounting and #erified chain of custody 2legal and beneficial4 to the purported
obligation fits the #las.i v. Ban. of America 028 !al. A"". =
$ist. 21:6@ and
!osaAa% v. -ES, C! A! 3o! 10-772-8, 201? F!5! +ist! ABG)5 1>0207 2'hode )sland
201?4 cases! $he #las.i and !osaAa% courts 2fairly and impartially4 correctly stepped
aside while the homeowner established the fact that a purported :assignment; was a
post-hoc fabrication!
/rom *ashington 5tate6 *hen making a claim for money or monies worth, an
assurance of due performance must be produced! Certain information must be
pro#ided, and the harm comes from not knowing, i"so facto! /or recent persuasi#e
law from another urisdiction 5ee Bnecht v. Fidelit%, 2017 F!5! +ist! Ae9is 11?1?1
2*ashington *+ August 17, 20174!
/n? -- $he court obser#es that it is the beneficiary, not the borrower, who
can be e9pected to possess e#idence that it is the holder or owner of a
promissory note! $he %o"$t f!nds !t "nl!0el# t)at a Was)!n'ton %o"$t
o"ld ("$den t)e (o$$oe$ alone !t) p$o+!d!n' t)at e+!den%e! As
the Bain court obser#ed, in cases where :the original lender haMsN sold the
loan, thMeN purchaser would need to esta(l!s) one$s)!p of that loan,
either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or by
do%"&ent!n' t)e %)a!n of t$ansa%t!ons!; 28@ ,!?d at 7=-78!
Any time spent in#estigating that chain of title constitutes an in%ury as well! ,d.
Dut the trial court erroneously failed to address this material issue and simply shut the
case down!
A claimant is required to raise 5tanding issues immediately or risk wai#ing
them! 5ee AB< Ambro v. Southern Securit% Federal, ?=2 5!*!?d 121I 2011 $enn! App!
ABG)5 >2@ 2$3 Ct! App! 201146
*e ha#e re#iewed the record and ha#e determined that the standing
argument was not raised in the trial court and appears, for the first
time, in 5outhern 5ecuritySs appellate brief! Decause 5outhern
5ecurity did not raise the issue of standing in the trial court, it
has wai#ed the argument on appeal!
)n that case there was allegedly uncontested e#idence in the record to support
AD3s position! &owe#er, in this instance there is no such e#idence and Appellant
pro#ided a number of e9amples of rampant general fraud--in#ol#ing these same
parties and entities that do business with these parties, i!e! +ocG and Aorraine
Drown-- in an attempt to clue the Court into the fact that there could be fraud in this
case, but the fact remains that Appellant cant pro#e it because Appellant has ne#er
obtained a full accounting! $hats not the fault of Appellant! 5ee Onecht, /n?, su"ra.
5o the trial court has ,laintiff/Appellant coming and goingEE As such, the
ruling is incomplete and arguably reads as pure sophistry! Appellant thereby tendered
a timely 'ule @0 8otion for 'elief seeking specific findings of fact and conclusions
of law with respect to the items clearly delineated hereinabo#e, but ultimately ne#er
got any meaningful response! Accord ;eal v. A*-S,, 7@0 D!'! 80=I 2011 Dankr!
ABG)5 2?@0 20
Cir Dankruptcy 201146
"n 3o#ember @, 2000, the <eals filed an ob%ection to A&85)Ss proof of
claim! Appro9imately a month later, the <eals filed a memorandum of
points and authorities in support of their claim ob%ection! Among other
ob%ections, the <eals contended that AHMSI la%0ed stand!n'!
According to the <eals, A&85) needed to establish that it was authoriCed
to act as ser#icing agent on behalf of *ells /argo, and that that either
A&85) or *ells /argo had to be qualified as holders of the 3ote, within
the meaning of AriConaSs #ersion of the Fniform Commercial Code! $he
<eals argued that the proof of claim e9hibits did not establish any of
these necessary facts!274
274 $he <eals also argued that there were se#eral defects in the chain of
mortgage assignments between (5/ and *ells /argo, but the <eals
emphasiCed that the key defect was the failure to establish that either
A&85) or *ells /argo qualified as the holder of the note!
)n each appeal, the issue presented is whether the Appellee established its
standing as a real party in interest to pursue the relief it requested! *ith respect
to *ells /argoSs request for relief from the automatic stay, we hold that a party
has standing to seek relief from the automatic stay if it has a property interest
in, or is entitled to enforce or pursue remedies related to, the secured obligation
that forms the basis of its motion!
*ith respect to A&85)Ss proof of claim, we hold that a party has standing to
prosecute a proof of claim in#ol#ing a negotiable promissory note secured by
real property if, under applicable law, it is a Qperson entitled to enforce the noteQ
as defined by the Fniform Commercial Code!
Applying these holdings, in the relief from stay appeal, we determine that the
record does not support the bankruptcy courtSs finding that *ells /argo had
standing! *e thus 'B<B'5B the bankruptcy courtSs relief from stay order! )n
A&85)Ss claim ob%ection appeal, the bankruptcy court did not make findings
necessary to determine A&85)Ss standing as a person entitled to enforce the
<ealsS obligations, so we must <ACA$B the claim ob%ection order and
'B8A3+ for further proceedings!
II. Pla!nt!ff4s Co&pla!nt as Clea$ and Well5Pled* Ent!tl!n' Pla!nt!ff/Appellant to
T)e E2"!ta(le Re&ed!es So"')t.
Appellant sought no :relief; other than the equity court declaring that before
some :person; makes a demand on a man or woman for money, moneys worth, or a
thing of #alueKeither %udicially or e9tra%udicially-- that :person; 2natural or
%uridicial4, &"st be in possession of, and produce a genuine claim supported with
strict proof!
+espite Appellants right to demand a genuine claim is produced, substantiated
with strict proof, the equity court erroneously stated Appellant failed to state a claim
entitling Appellant to relief!
$hat is simply not true! After multiple pre-suit e9tra%udicial attempts by
Appellant to compel the production of a genuine claim, Appellant was left no choice
to assert that right in an equity court!
Appellant e#en pro#ided a semi- complete presumed chain of custody to the
title to the purported obligation to show good cause for seeking the declaration and
supporting documents! $he goal being to fill in the gaps once the declaration was
entered! 5aid sample being Appendi9 D attached to Appellants 5econd Amended
Complaint! 2ibid, '! p! 1=0!4
Appellant stated a #ery simple claim, best summariCed by reciting the #ery
specific equitable remedy sought in Appellants second amended bill for declaratory
%udgment at p! 1> 2emphasis in bold46
/)'5$ CAF5B "/ AC$)"3
a4 $he court enters an "rder granting a $emporary 'estraining "rder
and ,reliminary )n%uncti#e 'elief e9pressly en%oining 8"D, 8$D,
8B'5 or &5DC and/or their agents, principals or assigns from pursuing
any further %udicial or non-%udicial foreclosure action, for the reasons set
forth herein, until the merits of ,laintiffs case can be heard at trial, and
for any other and further relief which is %ust and properI
5BC"3+ CAF5B "/ AC$)"3
b4 +eclaring that Defendants* and all of t)e&* 1o!ntl# and se+e$all#*
oe a d"t#* and a$e o(l!'ated to Pla!nt!ff to p$od"%e a (ona f!de
%la!&* to !n%l"de a +e$!f!ed a%%o"nt!n'! 5aid st$!%t p$oof s)all !n%l"de
Pla!nt!ff4s a%%ess to $e+!e o$!'!nal* 'en"!ne* a"t)ent!%ated
!nst$"&ents !n %"stod# of Defendants at a mutually agreeable location!
$he ele&ents of sa!d %la!& to !n%l"de a +e$!f!ed a%%o"nt!n' and
p$od"%t!on of a +e$!f!ed %)a!n of t!tle <le'al and (enef!%!al= to t)e
p"$po$ted o(l!'at!on* a"t)ent!%ated (# %$ed!(le* %o&petent* $el!a(le
!tnesses !t) f!$st )and 0noled'e* alle'edl# !n possess!on* %"stod#
and %ont$ol of defendants and/o$ all of t)e&!
c4 +eclaring that 8"D, 8$D, its/their agents, principals, transferors,
transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or
attorneys fa!led and $ef"sed to %o&pl# !t)* o$ o(1e%t to* Pla!nt!ff4s
p$e5s"!t Not!%es and De&ands to p$od"%e a (ona f!de %la!&I
d4 +eclaring that 8"D, 8$D and its/their agents, principals, transferors,
transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or
attorneys oed a d"t#* and e$e o(l!'ated to Pla!nt!ff* to
s"(stant!+el# $espond to ,laintiffs 3otices and +emandsI
e4 +eclaring that 8"D, 8$D and its/their agents, principals, transferors,
transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or
attorneys fa!led and $ef"sed to %o&pl# !t) state and fede$al la*
!n%l"d!n' t$"st* %ont$a%t* se%"$!t!es and %o&&e$%!al la (# fa!l!n' to
p$od"%e a (ona f!de %la!&!
Appellant also clearly articulated to the equity court the elements to be met for
the requested relief to be granted and how those elements were met in Appellants
initial complaint 2ibid, '! p! 14 at U 78 2said elements were included in subsequent
> Ele&ents fo$ De%la$ato$# 9"d'&ent to 8e Met
(1) &here i# a bona fde, actual )re#ent )ractical need for the
declaration #ought$ <lainti=# ha!e met thi# burden a# <lainti=#
ha!e e>hau#ted their admini#trati!e remedie# before re#orting
to litigation$
50B 5&B and it#:their agent# )rinci)al# or a##ign# ha!e
failed:refu#ed to com)ly with #tate and federal law and failed:
refu#ed to com)ly with )re1)etition di#co!ery$
<lainti=-# actual need for declaratory "udgment ari#e# out of the
court-# )ower to declare right# and the declaration #hall ha!e
the force and e=ect of a 9nal "udgment or decree which u) until
thi# )oint <lainti=# ha!e been unable to achie!e without
re#orting to "udicial )roce##$
(2) &he declaration deal# with )re#ent a#certained or
a#certainable #tate of fact# or )re#ent contro!er#y a# to a #tate
of fact#$ ?ntici)ated future contro!er#ie# will not #u))ort the
<lainti= ha# attached )ublic record #elf authenticating un1
rebutted admi##ible e!idence )er &enn$ @!id$ Aule /+2 that
#u))ort# the un1rebutted )re#ent fact#$
(3B Some right )ower )ri!ilege or immunity of the com)laining
)arty i# de)endent on the fact# or the law a))licable to the
<lainti=-# right to redre## the un#ub#tantiated claim made u)on
<lainti= in future ci!il and criminal com)laint# i# de)endent on
the fact# law and )ublic record #elf1authenticating e!idence
9led in the in#tant ca#e$ See County Materials Corp. v. Allan
Block Corp$ 431 3$Su))$2d /3( /45 C8$2$ 8i#c$ 2++6B C%a
declaratory "udgment action i# )ro)er when a declaration of
right# i# a bona 9de nece##ity for the natural
defendant:declaratory "udgment )lainti= to carry on with it#
(4) Some )er#on ha# or may ha!e an actual )re#ent ad!er#e
and antagoni#tic intere#t in the #ub"ect matter either in fact or
&he e!idence #how# that 50B 5&B and it#:their agent#
)rinci)al# or a##ign# ha!e claimed #ome intere#t in the #ub"ect
<lainti= i# un#ure a# to the identitie# of un6nown certi9cate
holder# who may ha!e )urcha#ed mortgage bac6ed #ecuritie#
collateraliDed debt obligation# counter)artie# to credit default
#wa)# or any other legal )er#on who may ha!e an actual
)re#ent ad!er#e and antagoni#tic intere#t or claim in the
#ub"ect matter of <lainti=-# com)laint$
(5) &he ad!er#e and antagoni#tic intere#t i# before the court by
)ro)er )roce## or cla## re)re#entation$
&he ad!er#e and antagoni#tic intere#t i# before the court by
)ro)er )roce## to 6nown )er#on# with an antagoni#tic intere#t
including 50B and 5&B a# )ur)orted agent# )rinci)al# or
a##ign# for ESBC 5@AS and for un6nown )er#on# with a
)otential antagoni#tic intere#t in the #ub"ect matter$
(6) &he relief #ought i# not merely the gi!ing of legal ad!ice by
the court or an an#wer to ;ue#tion# founded merely in curio#ity$
<lainti= doe# not #ee6 the coun#el or ad!ice of thi# court a#
<lainti= i# ca)able of handling <lainti=-# commercial matter#$
<lainti= merely #ee6# the court-# )ower ha!ing obtained
"uri#diction through )ro)er )roce## o!er 6nown )er#on#
belie!ed to ha!e an antagoni#tic intere#t in the #ub"ect matter
to declare "udgment in fa!or of <lainti= #o that <lainti= can
enforce <lainti=-# commercial right# at law and e;uity in future
*ith the initial bill in equity and subsequent amended bills, Appellant labored
to articulate clear-cut points of law, equitable ma9ims and facts to put the Court and
+efendants-Appellees on clear notice of the remedy sought!
Appellant, in good faith, e#en did some of the work for +efendants/Appellees
and the court by submitting a partial chain of title to the best of Appellants
knowledge, lea#ing the missing parts to +efendants to fill in once the lower court
entered the declaratory %udgment! 5aid document being pre#iously referenced as
Appellants App! D to the 2
Amended Dill! 2ibid, '! p! 1=0!4
$he Court erred in failing to recogniCe Appellants right to equitable relief,
stating that Appellant had not stated any facts that could constitute a Cause of Action
against any +efendant! $he following sample e9cerpts from Appellants well pled bill
in equity, makes it #ery clear in the :,arties; section, stating why each defendant was
@! 8"D is a necessary party as 8"D may claim to ha#e a legal or
equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the
complaint ad#erse to plaintiffSs legal and beneficial title! M5ee Chain of
$itle worksheet e9posing une9plained gaps that will be e9plained when
the declaration sought is enteredN!
=! +efendant 8$D, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as
8$D made the initial demand of money or moneys worth from ,laintiff
on the alleged account, as agent or purported :ser#icer; for 8"D! 23otice
to Agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is 3otice to Agent4!
10! 8B'5, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as 8B'5 is
named as purported nominee/agent for /irst 3ational Dank of AriCona on
the copy of the security instrument 2deed of trust4 2assuming arguendo
the copy is a true copy of the original4 in possession and control of
,laintiff that is the sub%ect of this action!
1?! &5DC, upon information and belief, is a necessary party as &5DC is
named as purported trustee for an unknown entity on a copy of an undated
allonge to a copy of the promissory note 2assuming arguendo it is a true
and correct copy of the original4 in possession and control of ,laintiff that
is the sub%ect of this action!
An unsubstantiated non-%udicial fraudclosure attempt was made by
+efendant/ Appellee, 8R$ Dank, absent any substantiated proof of claim, that was
repeatedly demanded by Appellant! 5aid attempt can be re#i#ed at any point in
/urther support for Appellants bill can be found in the factual statements in
UU 1=-22 of the 5econd Amended Dill!
1=! ,laintiff possesses the right to demand the production of a bona fide
claim, supported with strict proof! ustice demands a #alid claim is
produced! An equity court, charged with the duty to do what is fair, %ust
and right, must demand nothing less!
18! Defore seeking relief from an equity court, ,laintiff ser#ed multiple
pre-suit, e9tra%udicial notices and disco#ery demands on +efendants,
their agents, principals, transferors, transferees, officers, assigns,
ser#ants, contractors, employees, and/or attorneys to produce a bona fide
claim 2,ltf! B9! 1, 2, etc4!
10! +espite repeated good faith requests o#er the past ? years to all
named +efendants 2four 274 separate demands4, their agents, principals,
transferors, transferees, officers, assigns, ser#ants, contractors,
employees, and/or attorneys failed to ob%ect and failed to comply with
said demand!
20! $he failure to pro#ide responses to any of the demands to produce a
bona fide claim, to include mandated state and federal disclosures,
creates an actual contro#ersy and draws 5tanding and 'eal ,arty in
)nterest into substantial question! 5ee generally Shields v. <orton, 280
/!?d 8?2, 8?@ 2@
Cir! 20024
A suit for declarator% relief, while allowing a "art% to
antici"ate a suit and see. a Audicial resolution, must
nevertheless meet this .e%stone limitation. ,n hornboo. form, a
declarator% action must be ri"e in order to be Austiciable, and
is ri"e onl% where an actual controvers% exists. An actual
controvers% exists where a substantial controvers% of sufficient
immediac% and realit% exists between "arties having adverse
legal interests. 5rdinaril% whether "articular facts are
sufficientl% immediate to establish an actual controvers% %ields
answers on a case4b%4case basis. (hether a declarator% action
As such, this is not a #ictimless crime so to speak! $here was a real and tangible course of action taken here,
and the Court does not do ustice or Bquity to ignore the fact that these +efendants may well ha#e taken
action to depri#e a homeowner of her /undamental 'ight to own property without any authority whatsoe#er!
"ne must wonder if the Court will e#en inquire if or when this action proceeds in a non-%udicial manner!
$his Court is clothed with equitable powers and authority to do what is fair, %ust and right!
is ri"e, b% its ver% structure, "ushes against our insistence u"on
mature dis"utes. That is, it contem"lates an ex ante
determination of rights that exists in some tension with
traditional notions of ri"eness.
21! ,laintiff will suffer irreparable harm, along with slander of her good
name, and slander of title to property, if a non-%udicial fraduclosure can
be carried out in the absence of a bona fide claim being produced!
22! ,laintiffs pre-suit 3otices and +emands are in compliance with
$enn!'!C!,! 'ule2s4 2>-2=, and principles of pre-complaint disco#ery
seen in other states and applicable herein #ia $enn! B#id! 'ule2s4 2012d4,
2022a4, and the F!5! Const! art )< sec! 1 full faith and credit clause6 $o
wit, ,a! Code 'ule 700?!82a4 :A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint
disco#ery where the information sought is material and necessary to the
filing of the complaint and the disco#ery will not cause unreasonable
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or e9pense to any person
or party!;
Compelling production of the two 224 elements to support a genuine claim will
maintain a balance of the equities between the parties, maintain the status quo, and
pro#ide Appellant the rightful remedy that Appellant sought with clean hands, but was
denied in the trial court!
)t was re#ersible and plain error for the Court to ignore Appellant right to a
declaratory %udgment stating +efendants ha#e a non-delegable duty to pro#ide the
strict proof Appellant sought! Appellants suit is founded not only on common sense
and equity, but also by decisional law in the 5i9th Circuit and across the country in
other non-%udicial foreclosure states!
/or the abo#e reasons for good cause, the appellate court should do what is fair,
%ust and equitable by re#ersing the trial courts decision and remand for further
+ated this JJJJday of JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ2017

'espectfully submitted,
BliCabeth B! Crockett
,ursuant to >th Cir!'!?22a42=42c4, the undersigned certifies this brief complies with the
type-#olume limitations of >th Cir!'!?22a42=42D4!
1! BGCAF5)<B "/ $&B BGB8,$B+ ,"'$)"35 )3 $&B >
2D42iii4, $&B D')B/ C"3$A)356 =,>=2 words
2! $&B D')B/ &A5 DBB3 ,'B,A'B+ in proportionately spaced typeface using
*ord,erfect <ersion 8!0 Aegal Bdition in $imes 3ew 'oman 17 point type
?! )/ $&B C"F'$ 5" 'BWFB5$5, $&B F3+B'5)(3B+ *)AA ,'"<)+B
A3 BABC$'"3)C <B'5)"3 "/ $&B D')B/ A3+/"' A C",V "/
$&B*"'O "' A)3B ,')3$"F$!
7! $&B F3+B'5)(3B+ F3+B'5$A3+5 A 8A$B')AA
8)5'B,'B5B3$A$)"3 )3 C"8,AB$)3( $&)5 CB'$)/)CA$B, "'
C)'CF8<B3$)"3 "/ $&B $V,B-<"AF8B A)8)$5 )3 >$& C)'! '!
?22A42=4, 8AV 'B5FA$ )3 $&B C"F'$5 5$')O)3( $&B D')B/ A3+
)8,"5)3( 5A3C$)"35 A(A)35$ $&B ,B'5"3 5)(3)3( $&B D')B/!
BliCabeth B! Crockett
), JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ, hereby certify that a copy of the
foregoing document was ser#ed #ia F5,5 /irst Class 8ail, in a sealed en#elope on or
about this JJJJJ day of JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ, 2017 to the following
5$)$B5 R &A'D)5"3, ,AAC for
&5DC Dank F5A, 3!A!/ 8"'$(A(B BABC$'"3)C 'B()5$'A$)"3 5V5$B85,
)nc!, Aauren ,a9ton 'oberts 2D,' 3o! 2@0704
701 Commerce 5treet, 5uite 800
5un$rust ,laCa
3ash#ille, $3! ?=210
DAOB', +"3BA5"3, DBA'8A3, CAA+*BAA R DB'O"*)$X, ,!C! for
8F$FAA "/ "8A&A DA3O
Courtney &! (ilmer 2D,' 221?14
aime A! +e'ensis 2D,' 20=0>4
211 Commerce 5treet, 5uite 800
3ash#ille, $3! ?=201
*)A5"3 R A55"C)A$B5, ,AAC for
8R$ DA3O Corporation
Bdward +! 'ussell 2DA,' 2?12>4
Creekside Crossing )))
8 Cadillac +ri#e, 5uite 120
Drentwood, $3! ?=02=
) declare under penalty of per%ury under the laws of the Fnited 5tates of
America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge!
B9ecuted this JJJ day of JJJJJJJJ2017, at JJJJJJJJJJ County, $ennessee!

BliCabeth B! Crockett