You are on page 1of 253

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 1 of 253 PageID 2690

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SAMUEL G. BREITLING AND
JO ANN BREITLING,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LNV CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants.

NO. 3:15-CV-00703-B
MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGE TILLERYS VOID
ORDER

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE TILLERYS VOID ORDER


Come now Plaintiffs, Samuel G. and JoAnn S. Breitling, who are self represented and
incorporate herein their pleadings in the following directly related cases:
1. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause DC-14-04053 in the Dallas County
District Court in the 134th Judicial District, filed on April 15, 2014
2. Breitlings v. LNV Corporation et al, Civil Cause DC-14-09604 in the Dallas County
District Court in the 101st Judicial District, filed on August 29
3. Breitling et al. v. LNV Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-3322-M (first
removal by Beal entities to this U.S. District Court, heard by Judge Barbara Lynn)
4. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. JD15-00071C in the Justice of the
Peace Court Number 2 in Garland Texas, Judge Gerry Cooper
5. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. CC-15-00911-C in the County
Courts at Law Number 3 in Dallas County, Judge Sally Montgomery
6. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. 05-15-0677-CV in the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, filed on or around May 27, 2015
7. Breitling et al. v. LNV Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00703-B (second
removal by Beal entities) U.S. District Court, now heard by Judge Jane Boyle.
Plaintiffs hereby motion this federal court to vacate the unconstitutional order issued on
August 4, 2014 by Judge Dale Tillery in the above referenced related case LNV Corporation v.
Breitlings (case DC-14-04053) (LNV v. Breitlings) which granted Defendant LNV

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 2 of 253 PageID 2691

Corporations (LNV) motion for summary judgment to foreclose on Plaintiffs property. This
court should vacate said order for the following reasons:
1. The order is void because it was issued as a result of Dale B. Tillerys violation of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law
guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by the fifth (5th) and fourteenth
(14th) amendments to the United States Constitution.
2. The order is void because it was issued through acts of intrinsic and extrinsic
fraud perpetrated against Plaintiffs by Defendant LNV Corporation (LNV) and
by Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski P.C. (C&S) and by Dale B. Tillery, who is a
Judge in the Dallas County District Court in the 134th Judicial District; but who
was not acting within the scope of his judicial office when he issued the afore
referenced order and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue such order.

On June 23, 2014 Plaintiffs filed a timely answer to LNVs petition for in rem foreclosure
via their Counsel the Lane Law Firm.
On July 7, 2014 Defendant LNV, as plaintiff in the related case, filed via their Counsel
Jeffrey Hardaway, employed by Defendant C&S, a motion for default summary judgment. On
the same day Judge Dale Tillery signed an Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home
Equity Foreclosure favoring LNV.
On July 9, 2014 this order showed up on the online docket for the Dallas County Courts
and Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling, defendant in the related case LNV v. Breitlings, phoned the court
because she knew this should not have happened under Texas Civil Rules of Procedure because
they filed a timely answer to LNVs petition. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling was told by the court

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 3 of 253 PageID 2692

coordinator, Francine Ly, that the judge must not have liked their answer. Plaintiff JoAnn
Breitling told Francine that as a matter of law, whether the judge liked their answer or not, a
judge cannot, without a hearing, order a default judgment when a timely answer has been filed;
and that doing so would be a violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and a direct violation of
Plaintiffs (defendants in the related case) constitutional rights of due process.
On July 9, 2014 the court then issued an Order Withdrawing Courts Signed Order
stating: the Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home Equity Foreclosure favoring
LNV was signed in ERROR; and a hearing on LNVs motion for default summary judgment
was scheduled by the court for 8:00 AM on August 4, 2014. (See Document# 38 page 4 and
pages 13 and 14.)
On July 28, 2014 the Lane Law Firm filed a response to LNVs motion for default
summary judgment. On this same day Plaintiffs had a disagreement with their Counsel over
their handling of Plaintiffs case.
On July 29, 2014 the Lane Law Firm filed a Motion to Withdraw, which the court
granted on July 30, 2014. Also filed on July 29, 2014 was a Joint Objection to Court Order
Mediation (Joint Objection) and Motion to Reconsider the Order Approving Mediator Fees.
This motion states:
Plaintiff recently brought this lawsuit in order to foreclose on the Breitlings
home. One week after Defendants filed the Answer, the Court ordered the parties
to mediation, scheduled for August 4, 2014. However to date, no discovery has
been conducted by either party in this case and trial is set of March 30, 2015. Both
Plaintiff and Defendants object to the order to mediation in this case because
mediation would be futile at this early stage of the case.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 the Lane Law Firm in Plaintiffs behalf filed a motion for a
thirty-day (30-day) continuance of to allow Plaintiffs time to find a new attorney. This motion

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 4 of 253 PageID 2693

pointed out that the trial date was set for March 30, 2015; and that LNV filed their Motion for In
Rem Summary Judgment less than two weeks after Plaintiffs answer was filed; and that a
hearing was set for Monday, August 4, 2014; but since they withdrew as Plaintiffs attorneys on
July 29, 2014 it was reasonable for the court to grant such a continuance; noted was the fact that
LNVs Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway was opposed to the continuance. The hearing on the
continuance motion was also scheduled on Monday August 4, 2014 at 8:00 AM. Also on
Wednesday, July 30, 2014 Plaintiffs filed their first pro-se pleading in the form of a letter to the
court.
On July 31, 2014 Plaintiffs filed pro-se a motion to transfer back to the 116th District
Court.
On August 3, 2014 Plaintiffs filed a supplement to the objection to LNVs summary
judgment which the Lane Law Firm had filed on July 28, 2014. The Lane Law Firms objection
was a generic response they used for all their typical foreclosure cases and Plaintiffs case is not
a typical foreclosure. Plaintiffs wanted facts specific to their case on the court record.
On August 4, 2014 Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling arrived at the courthouse at 7:00 AM. At the
start of the hearing C&S attorney Jeffrey Hardaway stood up and introduced himself as the
attorney for LNV. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling stood up and said "My name is JoAnn Breitling, and
I am here today, pro se."
Judge Tillery then said I have a motion of continuance and I am not continuing this
case." He gave no reason for his decision to deny Plaintiffs motion for a thirty-day (30-day)
continuance to find another attorney.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 5 of 253 PageID 2694

Judge Tillerys denial of Plaintiffs motion for continuance to find new counsel to
represent them was a highly punitive abuse of his judicial discretion that has caused Plaintiffs to
suffer a domino effect of cascading deprivations of their constitutional rights to due process and
equal protection of law. It has unconstitutionally caused them to have to simultaneously defend
themselves pro-se in seven (7) different courts on the same issues. Not one of these seven (7)
courts has heard or adjudicated any of Plaintiffs claims.
Pro se litigants are significantly disadvantaged compared to trained and seasoned
attorneys like Jeffrey Hardaway. Judge Tillery knew or should have known this. The
appearance is that Judge Tillerys intent was to deny Plaintiffs their constitutional rights to due
process and equal protection of the law by forcing Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling, a disabled senior, to
represent her familys ownership interests in their property as a disadvantaged pro-se litigant.
Scheduled to be heard next that morning were Plaintiffs motion to transfer back to the
116th District Court and then LNVs motion for summary judgment. It is exceptionally unusual
for a court to schedule back-to-back hearings on motions like Judge Tillery did in the Plaintiffs
related case LNV v. Breitlings.
In Plaintiffs letter to the court filed on July 30, 2014 Plaintiffs explained how LNV was
attempting to circumvent earlier court findings and rulings in prior litigation in the 116th District
Court where the Honorable Judge Tonya Parker had already made a determination of fact and a
conclusion of law specific to summary judgment on issues so related to Defendant LNVs
standing to foreclose on Plaintiffs property that to assure justice and to facilitate orderly and
efficient disposition of the litigation a transfer of the LNV v Breitlings case back to the earlier
case was warranted.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 6 of 253 PageID 2695

This was explained in Plaintiffs Motion for Transfer filed on July 31, 2014. Plaintiffs
explained how MGC Mortgage Inc. (MGC) is the company that claimed to be a mortgage
servicer for LNV in Plaintiffs earlier litigation in the 116th District Court; and how both these
shell and sham companies (LNV and MGC) were created by Daniel Andrew Andy Beal,
(Beal), to facilitate fraudulent foreclosures using false deed assignments and allonges to notes
that contain forgeries, false signatures, and false statements specific to the grantors/assignors and
grantee/assignees. Submitting false and forged mortgage related documents to courts as genuine,
while knowing they are not genuine, is fraud upon the court.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated Fraud
upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between
the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a
member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not
performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been
directly corrupted.
At the August 4, 2014 hearing Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling informed Judge Tillery that there
was a three year history of litigation involving the same parties (or related parties as MGC was
alleged to be the servicer for an undisclosed party at the time of the earlier litigation) in which
Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling (defendants in the LNV v Breitlings related case, and plaintiffs, in the
prior litigation) and that Plaintiffs in the current case had filed a motion to transfer the LNV v
Breitlings related case back to the 116th District court. (The Breitlings claims in the earlier case
involved misappropriation of payments, mortgage servicing fraud, and other claims specific to
mortgage servicing that have a direct bearing on LNVs standing to foreclose on their property.)

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 7 of 253 PageID 2696

Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling asked Judge Tillery to continue the case until the September 5th
hearing scheduled in Judge Parker's court specific to the transfer. Judge Tillery said: No. You
are not transferring. Again he provided no reason for his decision. He abused his discretion
because the decision about the transfer based on Texas Local Rules should have been made by
Judge Parker.
Judge Tillerys decision was made in conflict with Local Rules 1.06 and 1.07 of the Civil
Courts of Dallas County Texas which require any pending case so related to another case
previously filed in or disposed of by another Court of Dallas County Court to transfer the latter
case to the earlier Court of jurisdiction to facilitate orderly and efficient disposition of the
litigation. The Judge of the Court in which the earlier case is or was pending may, upon notice
to all affected parties and Courts can set a hearing and transfer the latter case back to the earlier
court; and Judge Parker had scheduled such a hearing for September 5, 2014.
Local Rule 1.06 Cases Subject to Transfer states:
The following types of cases shall be subject to transfer under local rule 1.06:
(a.) Any case arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as an earlier
case, particularly if the earlier case was dismissed by plaintiff before
final judgment.
(b.) Any case involving a plea that a judgment in the earlier case is
conclusive of any of the issues of the later case by way of res judicata or
estoppel by judgment, or any pleading that requires a construction of the
earlier judgment or a determination of its effect.
(c.) Any suit for declaratory judgment regarding the alleged duty of an
insurer to provide a defense for a party to the earlier suit.
(d.) Any suit concerning which the duty of an insurer to defend was involved
in the earlier suit. (source 1.1(f)(2))
Local Rule 1.07 Disclosure Regarding Cases Subject to Transfer states:

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 8 of 253 PageID 2697

The attorneys of record for the parties in any particular case within the categories
of Local Rule 1.07 must notify the Judges of the respective Courts in which the
earlier and later cases are assigned of the pendency of the later case. The attorney
filing a case that is so related to another previously filed case shall disclose in the
original pleading or in a separate simultaneous filing that the case is so related an
identify by style, case number and Court, the related case (Emphasis added.)
Emphasis on the words shall and must in the foregoing is added by Plaintiffs. The
language of these laws is clear judges and attorney do not have discretion to comply with
statute they SHALL and they MUST comply.
As pro se litigants Plaintiffs did not know that the Local Rules required attorneys to
notify judges of earlier related cases; they themselves did notify Judge Tillery in their pro se
letter to the court filed on July 30, 2014. Although at the time Plaintiffs did not know about the
Local Rules quoted above Judge Tillery and LNVs Counsel, Jeffrey Hardaway, knew or should
have known about these Rules. The fact that Plaintiffs raised the issue of transfer and disclosed
the existence of an earlier related case that was never adjudicated due to the intentional delays of
MGCs attorney, Scott Hayes, and then the medical emergency involving the Plaintiffs mentally
disabled son, Matthew Breitling, which caused the Plaintiffs to non-suit MGC to care for their
son. (See Document # 44-1)
The related case LNV v Breitlings was subject to transfer as per Local Rules 1.06 of the
Civil Courts of Dallas County, Texas. Therefore it appears Judge Tillery made his decision to
deny such transfer against the rule of law.
Judge Tillery did not allow Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling any opportunity to object or to make
these arguments in his court. Counsel for LNV, Jeffrey Hardaway, took advantage of Plaintiffs

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 9 of 253 PageID 2698

position as ill prepared pro-se litigants thrust onto them by Judge Tillery when he denied their
motion for a thirty-day (30-day) continuance so they could find another attorney.
The final motion heard at August 4, 2014 hearing was LNVs motion for summary
judgment. Defending against a motion for summary judgment is complicated and no one could
reasonably assume that a layperson such as Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling would be prepared to
present a case to defend against summary judgment when Plaintiffs Counsel had withdrawn
only a few days earlier on July 30, 2014. These facts suggest that Dale B. Tillery had a personal
motive and had intent to deprive Plaintiffs of counsel so that at the hearing on LNVs motion for
summary judgment because he most certainly knew, or should have known, Plaintiffs would
have been ill prepared to defend themselves against a seasoned attorney such as Jeffrey
Hardaway who, according to his bio on Defendant C&Ss website, has over seven years as a
litigation attorney dealing with all aspects of the foreclosure process from initial referral through
eviction (http://www.codilisandstawiarski.com/attorneys.html)
At the beginning of the hearing specific to LNVs motion for summary judgment LNVs
Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway claimed, These people have not made a payment in over four years,
and we are asking permission to foreclose. These people have breached their contract with us.
Plaintiffs stopped making payments on the advice of their prior attorney, Emil Lippe,
who represented them in the prior related case in the 116th Dallas District Court. Mr. Lippe told
Plaintiffs to stop making payments because MGC had no legal standing to collect payments from
them; and because Counsel for MGC had no idea who owned Plaintiffs loan and told Plaintiffs
that payments they already made to MGC were likely never credited to Plaintiffs loan to reduce
their principal balance. The key question that must be answered in all this litigation extending

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 10 of 253 PageID 2699

over so many years is whether MGC (or its alleged sub-servicer Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc.
(DMI)) ever had a legal right to collect payments in behalf of LNV; and whether LNV lacks
standing itself. No court has heard any of the Plaintiffs claims specific to this one key question.
Material facts specific to LNVs standing to foreclose needed to be determined in LNV v.
Breitlings and in each of the related cases spawned from it (i.e Breitlings v LNV et al as Case No.
DC-14-09604 in the Dallas County District Court in the 101st Judicial District removed to this
federal court by Defendants as Case No: 3:14-cv-3322-M which was ultimately remanded and
then removed again by Defendants as the present case) because Plaintiffs have consistently
claimed LNV lacks standing and have provided all these courts with evidence to support their
claims, and their claims have never been adjudicated in any of the seven courts Defendant LNV
has dragged Plaintiffs through since they violated the automatic stay provided to Plaintiffs by
Texas Rule 736.11 and illegally sold Plaintiffs property to itself (i.e. to Daniel Andrew Beal via
his shell corporation Defendant LNV), causing Plaintiffs to suffer great harm as a result.
LNVs Counsel Hardaway is not and never has been a credible witness to any contract
between Plaintiffs and LNV. Hardaways claims are not founded in fact. Plaintiffs do not have a
contract with LNV and they vehemently deny the truth of Hardaways allegations made in
Tillerys court; however as a pro se litigant, made a pro-se litigant only moments before by
Judge Tillerys unconstitutional decision to deny Plaintiffs a thirty-day (30-day) continuance to
find new counsel, Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling did not know how to object to Hardaways false
allegations and hearsay testimony. It is certain Hardaway understood Plaintiffs disadvantaged
position and intentionally exploited it. At the very least the appearance is that he intentionally
deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to due process; and that Judge Tillery allowed this
and/or colluded with him to do so.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 11 of 253 PageID 2700

Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not
sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. TRINSEY v.
PAGLIARO Civ. A. No. 34873. 229 F. Supp. 647 (1964).
In addition to Tillerys allowance of Counsel Hardaways hearsay testimony, the
following hearsay affidavit testimony by counsel and by robo witnesses was allowed by
Tillery and by other judges in some of the seven (7) related cases to the present case. Plaintiffs
object to this hearsay affidavit testimony pursuant to Rule 802. Plaintiffs attempted to object to
such testimony in their pleadings and in court in each of the cases to be mentioned below.
In LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Case No. JD15-00071C in the Justice of the Peace
Court Number 2 in Garland Texas, Counsel LNV filed a sworn Verification by Bret Maloney
with their eviction complaint. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit A attached herein.) Bret Maloney has
filed affidavits in numerous court cases with LNV/Beal victims and he has provided testimony
through depositions all of which is perjured testimony and impeachable if Plaintiff ever had the
opportunity to question him. The moment Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling attempted to object to this
affidavit testimony by Bret Maloney LNVs Counsel Luke Madole and Judge Gerry Cooper
ushered her into chambers so the jury could not hear her objection and where they made light of
the evidence she had to show Bret Maloney had been convicted of a felony crime. (See
Document #38, page 10.) Additionally Bret Maloney was deposed in the noticed related
bankruptcy case of Christopher and Marcia Swift in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Case No. 12-35690. On page 13 of that Bret
Maloney deposition lines 8 through 12 he states in response to questions about MGCs address:
I believe Beal and LPP is 6000 Legacy Drive. It's actually the same building, just
two different streets that merge. Some are listed under 6000 Legacy Drive, the others
are listed under 7195 Dallas Parkway.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 12 of 253 PageID 2701

In fact the address 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX is an empty lot. Plaintiffs drove to
this address and photographed it. Google Maps also shows that this address is an empty lot and it
is NOT possible for this address to be in the same building as Beal Bank located at 6000 Legacy
Drive, Plano TX as the two streets do not merge as Bret Maloney testified and since he does
(did) work at the 6000 Legacy Drive, Plano TX address he should know this. (See Plaintiffs
Exhibit B attached herein Google Map of 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX.)
On page 28 line 7 through to line 23 of the aforementioned deposition of Bret Maloney
(Plaintiffs Exhibit C attached herein contains the entire deposition) it states:
Q. How many -- I will ask this question. How many senior vice presidents are
there?
A. Under MGC, I am the only one.
Q. Okay. And you have default management because that's basically what -- Are
there any other functions besides that that someone else takes care of or do you
take care of all the vice presidential type things, or are there other vice presidents
that takes of other things which are not a senior vice president?
A. There is another vice president who is vice president of operations and
compliance, and then there is my CCO who would be above me.
Yet in the noticed related case of LNV v. Subramaniam, Case No. 3:14-CV-01836-MO in
the U.S. District Court District of Oregon, Portland Division, Counsel for LNV submitted to the
court a declaration of Michelle Conner who also claims to also be a senior vice president of
MGC. Michelle Conner's LinkedIn profile shows her as an AVP/Bankruptcy Manager at MGC
Mortgage, Inc. People who work for Beals MGC cant seem to get their stories straight. (See
Plaintiffs Exhibit D attached herein)
Attached as Plaintiffs Exhibit E attached herein are sworn Bret Maloney Affidavits
submitted to courts in several other Beal/LNV victims cases to support motions for summary
judgment (including one submitted in Plaintiffs prior case in the 116th Dallas District Court)

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 13 of 253 PageID 2702

where Bret Maloneys sworn statements can be proven false. In the Hamm case he claims to
have never been convicted of a crime, yet a criminal report and background check included in
Exhibit E shows this to be untrue. Also note that Maloneys employer in the background check
is Beal Bank SSB not LNV and he is a Loan Trader and not a senior Vice President. This fact
was included in Plaintiffs pleadings submitted in Judge Dale Tillerys court, but which he never
read and never acknowledged.
A recent email communication with Counsel for LNV in the noticed related case LNV v.
Subramaniam states that Bret Maloney is no longer employed by MGC. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit
F attached herein.) His LinkedIn profile now states that he is seeking a new career opportunity.
This may be due to the fact that so many LNV/Beal victims have been discrediting his affidavit
testimony. Bret Maloney is not a credible witness. Neither is Edward J. Bagdon.
In related case LNV v. Breitlings, Defendant LNV, as the plaintiff in the earlier related
case, submitted to the court an affidavit of Edward J. Badgon to support of their motion for
summary judgment. (See pages 8 and 9 of Document # 37.)
Plaintiffs challenged the credibility of Edward J. Badgons testimony in their supplement
to their answer to LNVs motion for summary judgment filed on August 3, 2014. Also attached
herein as Exhibit G, is the a Edward J. Bagdon Business Records Affidavit filed by Counsel
for LNV Jeffery Hardaway with LNVs motion for summary judgment in LNV v. Breitlings and
a comparison of fifty-four (54) individual Edward J. Bagdon signatures found on mortgage
related documents filed with county property recorders offices across the county. Even to an
untrained eye the variations between these signatures indicates that multiple individuals signed
these documents as Edward J. Bagdon, when they were in fact not Edward J. Bagdon. This is

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 14 of 253 PageID 2703

consistent with the adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown and her coconspirators, i.e. they used other unauthorized employees to sign mortgage-related documents on
their behalf knowing that the documents would be notarized as if the co-conspirator has signed
the document, when he/she had not. Plaintiffs also had filed as defendants in LNV v. Breitlings
along with their first motion to vacate Tillerys void judgment filed on August 18, 2014 a motion
for judicial notice of the adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown for
doing exactly the same things Edward J. Bagdon and the unknown parties pretending to be him
by signing documents as if they were him; as well as the signing such documents claiming to be
a top executive officer of multiple financial institutions when he was never employed by such
institutions, nor was he ever a top executive officer of these institutions. The fact that he claimed
to be in the employ of these many institutions simultaneously through his signatures over many
years shows his deception; and discredits him as a viable witness as to the facts specific to the
Plaintiffs mortgage.
Bagdon was in fact employed by Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (DMI), an LPS service
provider; as is LNVs Counsel Jeffrey Hardaways employer Defendant C&S. LPS (Lender
Processing Services a.k.a Black Knight Financial Services) was identified by the United States as
the corporate vehicle used by Brown and her co-conspirators in their criminal indictment and
conviction of Lorraine Brown.
The rules of evidence (specifically Texas Rule 102 et seq, Federal Rule 201 et seq,
Federal Rule 301 et seq, Texas and Federal Rule 401 et seq); and due process require Plaintiffs to
have had an opportunity to question Edward J. Bagdon and to impeach his affidavit testimony by
having him appear as a witness at a trial were he would be under oath before the court and could
be held accountable for perjured testimony.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 15 of 253 PageID 2704

Plaintiffs objections should have prompted further discovery; the case was not ripe for a
summary judgment.
Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before
the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most
comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of
controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter
involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due
process of law. Zeigler v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 599.
Being physically present alone does not suffice. Plaintiffs (as defendants in that case)
were never heard. The hearing on August 4th was merely a farce, a setup to give the appearance
that they had a hearing, but their side of the dispute; their claims and their objections to LNVs
false affidavits were completely dismissed and ignored by Judge Tillery. Therefore Plaintiffs
were not heard; they were deprived of their right to due process.
These phrases [due process] in the constitution do not mean the general body of the law,
common and statute, as it was at the time the constitution took effect; for that would seem to
deny the right of the legislature to amend or repeal the law. They refer to certain fundamental
rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized.
Brown v. Levee Com'rs, 50 Miss. 468. Due process of law as used in the constitution, cannot
mean less than a prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms
and solemnities for ascertaining guilt, or determining the title to property. Embury v. Conner, 3
N.Y. 511, 517, 53 Am. Dec. 325. And see, generally, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 104, 24
L.Ed. 616.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 16 of 253 PageID 2705

LNVs Counsel, Jeffrey Hardaway intentionally submitted false and fraudulently


fabricated mortgage related documents to the court knowing they were false and with intent to
harm Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, as defendants in LNV v. Breitling, challenged the authenticity of these
mortgage related documents including assignments of deed of trust and allonges to the note.
The facts Plaintiffs showed through their pleadings which are material as to whether or
not LNV had standing to foreclose on Plaintiffs property which were filed in Judge Tillerys
court should have warranted further discovery and a trial on the merits of the case had Judge
Tillery been unbiased and impartial; and had he actually read Plaintiffs pleadings filed in his
court. Affiant Edward J. Bagdon is a robo witness and a robo-signer consistent with the
aforementioned adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown; yet Judge
Tillery accepted his perjured testimony as true and granted LNVs motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs post judgment motion to vacate Tillerys order gave Tillery the benefit of
the doubt and provided him an opportunity to correct his error; however he choose to stand by
his unconstitutional decision in spite of evidence that should have, and would have, swayed an
impartial judge.
LNVs Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway at one point during the August 4, 2014 hearing said,
"We have heard from Mrs. Breitling, but where is Mr. Breitling during all of this?" Judge Tillery
addressed Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling as Maam in a way that was extremely demeaning to her as
a woman. Both Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway and Judge Tillery spoke to Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling
in a way that was highly discriminatory in nature.
Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling had to represent her family at court because her husband was
with their son who is disabled with Down syndrome and a serious autoimmune condition and

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 17 of 253 PageID 2706

cannot be left alone. Before she could respond to Counsel Hardaways derogatory gender biased
comment, Judge Tillery said, I am ruling in favor of LNV because you, the Breitlings, did not
answer their summary judgment.
To this Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Judge Tillery, We DID answer. The attorneys
answered before they withdrew and it was timely. Judge Tillery responded, Well, I never saw
an answer. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Tillery it was filed on July 28th and handed Tillery
Plaintiffs supplemented answer filed on August 3, 2014.
Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Judge Tillery, I have filed a 120 page letter to this court
explaining this case. You never even read it, did you? Judge Tillery said nothing, so Plaintiff
said, You don't know anything about my case, because you never bothered to read anything that
I wrote.
These facts makes it appear that Judge Tillery intentionally signed the default judgment
order back on July 7th 2014 and that the hearing was only scheduled because Plaintiff JoAnn
Breitling caught him denying Plaintiffs their due process on the July 9th and phoned the clerks
office about the default judgment he signed when Plaintiffs had answered LNVs complaint.
The hearing on August 4th was a farce meant to give the appearance that Plaintiffs had a hearing
and the issues were thus adjudicated; but none of Plaintiffs claims were even heard they were
denied their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law under the fifth (5th)
and fourteenth (14th) amendments to the United States Constitution.
Thankfully there was a credible witness at the hearing who can testify to everything
Plaintiffs have claimed herein. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling was shocked when Francine Ly told
her there was no court record of their August 4, 2014 hearing. A hearing of such magnitude that

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 18 of 253 PageID 2707

it can result in an American citizen being deprived of their property should be recorded as a
matter of law and a full transcript of the proceedings should be available to both parties of the
litigation. Not recording such hearings violates homeowners constitutional rights to due process
because the lack of a transcript significantly disadvantages them in a post-judgment challenge to
a judges decision or a challenge to the constitutionality of a judges order; and it provides no
record to a court of appeals from which that higher court could make a just and fair decision;
particularly when the judge, as in the present case, does not provide any basis in law or fact for
his/her decision.
Judge Tillery did not read Plaintiffs pleadings. He refused to hear Plaintiffs arguments
or to review any of Plaintiffs evidence. He denied Plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to acquire
new counsel assuring that they would be unprepared to defend themselves against a motion for
summary judgment moments later; he violated Local Rule 1.06 and denied their motion to
transfer back to Judge Parkers court in spite of a hearing already set in her court on this matter;
he then without hearing any of Plaintiffs claims granted LNV their summary judgment motion.
Any neutral observer would conclude that Judge Tillery had decided to grant LNVs
motion for summary judgment prior the hearing held on August 4, 2014. This is a blatant
violation of Plaintiffs rights to due process and equal protection of law pursuant the United
States Constitution and Judge Tillerys behavior during the August 4, 2014 hearing violates the
Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. To quote the preamble to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:
"The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of
law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code of Judicial Conduct are the precepts that
judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a
public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system."

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 19 of 253 PageID 2708

The first Canon to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Upholding the Integrity and
Independence of the Judiciary, states:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.
A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards
of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary is preserved.
The second Canon to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Avoiding Impropriety and the
Appearance of Impropriety In All of the Judge's Activities, states:
(A.) A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (B.) A
judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A
judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of
the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
By granting LNV a summary judgment that allowed LNV to foreclose on Plaintiffs
property (i.e. deprive them of their property) without ever reading or reviewing Plaintiffs
statement of facts and legal arguments specific to LNVs standing to foreclose on their property,
after depriving them of an opportunity to find new counsel, and by refusing to allow them to be
heard in his courtroom, Judge Tillery directly violated the above quoted Canons to the Texas
Code of Judicial Conduct. He stepped beyond abuse of judicial discretion into the realm of
judicial misconduct. Judge Tillerys behavior in this matter not only gives the appearance of
impropriety; it smacks of impropriety.
As the plaintiff in LNV vs Breitlings LNV had the burden of proof. Courts and judges
are expected to the well-settled standard of review for traditional summary judgments. They
must determine whether the movant has met his burden to establish that no genuine issue of
material fact exists and that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Tex. R.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 20 of 253 PageID 2709

Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). A judge is
barred from making arbitrary or biased decisions unfounded in law. Courts and judges must
take as true all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable
inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovants favor. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997
S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999); Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 Judge Tillery did the
exact opposite of this mandate of law; he took as true all evidence that is favorable to the movant
and ignored and completely disregarded all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant. He
made no attempt of any kind to resolve any doubts in the nonmovants favor.
Judge Tillery wrote in his final order that defendants answer to summary judgment
was insufficient. Plaintiffs answer cannot be insufficient after the fact when Judge Tillery
maintained at the hearing Plaintiffs never filed an answer; and that he never saw it when told
they had filed an answer. Judge Tillery makes no mention of the individual claims raised in
Plaintiffs pleadings or how he disposed of them.
A judgment is not final merely because it states that it is final; it must actually dispose
of all parties and claims or demonstrate an unequivocal intent to dispose of all parties and
claims. See Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).
Judge Tillery failed to address any of Plaintiffs claims during the August 4th 2014
hearing. It was apparent he had no knowledge of Plaintiffs claims; he also appeared to not
understand the rules of law governing the case. The manner in which Tillery conducted himself
showed extreme bias against Plaintiffs and a headstrong determination to rule in favor of LNV as
far back as July 7, 2014 when he signed an Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home
Equity Foreclosure favoring LNV.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 21 of 253 PageID 2710

In Judge Tillerys written order issued on August 4, 2014 he simply stated Plaintiffs
claims were insufficient. This is not adequate to meet the requirements for due process as it fails
to even acknowledge, let alone address Plaintiffs claims.
Judge Tillerys decision to grant LNV summary judgment in LNV v. Breitlings shows a
blatant disregard for Texas rules of civil procedure; a disregard for the Texas cannons of judicial
conduct; a disregard for the Constitution of the United States and for the Texas Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683,
1687 (1974) stated:
"(W)hen a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal
Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution,
and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
authority of the United States.? [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a
state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his
person).
The extreme bias demonstrated by Judge Tillery against Plaintiffs at the August 4, 2014
hearing is indicative of a prior secret agreement between either Counsel for LNV, Jeffrey
Hardaway, or the owner of LNV, Daniel Andrew Beal and/or one of his many agents. Plaintiffs
are not in a position to prove this allegation but they pray the United States Attorney General and
the FBI will investigate Judge Tillery because additional evidence exists to suggest that Judge
Tillery makes decisions in favor of parties who provide him a financial or other personal benefit
as incentive. (See Exhibit G about Tillerys propensity to make decisions based on who has
given money or taken him out for lunches or drinks.) Judge Tillery cannot claim judicial
immunity for acts of treason against the Constitution or for criminal acts, such as accepting a
bribe in exchange for his judicial orders.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 22 of 253 PageID 2711

Regardless of whether or not an investigation by the United States Attorney General and
the FBI provides conclusive proof of bribery or other incentives for Judge Tillerys exceptionally
bias decision against Plaintiffs; it only takes the appearance of bias to undermine
constitutionality. The facts in this case warrant the vacating of Tillerys order as a matter of law.
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States
wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United
States, and the Constitution of the State of Texas, any judge who has acted in violation of the
Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully comply with the
Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without
jurisdiction.
Tillerys decision was made against the rules of law, and against the preponderance of the
evidence. He did in fact deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to due process and equal
protection of law and his resulting order is therefore void and of no effect.
According the United States Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, a judge who acts
under a state law in a manner that violates the Federal Constitution comes into conflict with the
superior authority of that Constitution, and is stripped of his official or representative character
and the judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual. Dale B. Tillery acted in a a
manner that violates the Federal Constitution and therefore acted not as a judge, but as a private
individual; and as a private individual he lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties in LNV v Breitlings. His order made as a private individual is of no legal consequence
and is void on its face.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 23 of 253 PageID 2712

A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity


of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also
Restatements, Judgments 4(b). Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if
a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not
voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in
opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such
judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340,
26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).
A default judgment is not presumed to be final. In re Burlington Coat Factory
Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W. 3d 827, 829 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Houston
Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam). When there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment
is not final for purposes of appeal unless it (1) actually disposes of every pending claim and
party, or (2) clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.
Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).
Tillerys order granting LNV summary judgment is void because it is the result of
extrinsic or collateral fraud. The definition of collateral fraud:
Fraud that prevents a party from knowing their rights or from having a fair
opportunity of presenting them at trial.
The definition of extrinsic fraud is:

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 24 of 253 PageID 2713

Fraud that induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the
opportunity to be heard [or] is not involved in the actual issues.
Tillery first denied Plaintiffs motion for a continuance that would have allowed them an
opportunity to hire a new attorney. This act by Tillery assured that Plaintiffs would be forced to
proceed without benefit of counsel, thus preventing them from knowing their rights and having a
fair opportunity to present them at the hearing. A reasonable and unbiased judge would have
granted the reasonable continuance of thirty-days (30-days) to allow Plaintiffs time to find new
counsel.
Tillerys first decision was to deprive Plaintiffs of counsel and appears to have been
intentional so as to prevent Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling from presenting a case in his court. It can
only be concluded that such a harsh and unfavorable decision was calculated to deprive Plaintiffs
of any opportunity to be heard. (This decision constitutes collateral and extrinsic fraud.)
A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered
by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E.
2d 756 (Va. 1987).
Tillerys next decision was to deny Plaintiffs motion to transfer back the 116th court.
This decision by Tillery was made against the Texas rules of civil procedure; and this decision
also appears to have been calculated with intent to deprive Plaintiffs of any opportunity to be
heard by an unbiased and impartial judge.
Finally Tillery granted LNV summary judgment allowing them to confiscate Plaintiffs
property; without ever reading their motions and other pleadings, without ever understanding or
acknowledging Plaintiffs claims, without testimony from a single credible witness, and against

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 25 of 253 PageID 2714

precedence of law that mandates the moving party has the burden of proof and that the court
must take as true all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable
inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovants favor.
It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment
must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L
Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law
upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial
decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. A judgment of a court
without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination
of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled
to respect in any other tribunal.
"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing
void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed
370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861.
"Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the
government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the
protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one
in question belongs." Cooley, Const. Lim. 441. - Whatever difficulty may be experienced in
giving to those terms a definition which will embrace every permissible exertion of power
affecting private rights, and exclude such as is forbidden, there can be no doubt of their meaning
when applied to judicial proceedings. They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to
those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 26 of 253 PageID 2715

enforcement and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must
be a tribunal competent by its constitution that is, by the law of its creation to pass upon the
subject matter of the suit Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565.
Furthermore when courts allow judges to make arbitrary and biased decisions such as
Tillerys decision in Plaintiffs case, and to continually participate in fraud upon the court (a
crime) unchecked and unsanctioned, then it causes great public harm as it erodes public
confidence in the judicial system and in our government.
Truth is always true, but falsehood is eventually discovered. It is better to protect the
constitutional rights of citizens like the Plaintiffs now and assure their claims are heard and that
each claim is addressed and adjudicated as per law and that a thorough process of discovery is
permitted to provide the court with genuine facts from which base solid judicial decisions upon.
Void judgments are open to challenge at any time. The case cited below involves a 1932
judgment vacated in 1944 due to proof that fraud was perpetrated on the court.
"No fraud is more odios than an attempt to subvert the administration of justice." Justice
Roberts in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). Quoting further:
This case involves the power of a Circuit Court of Appeals, upon proof that fraud
was perpetrated on it by a successful litigant, to vacate its own judgment entered at
a prior term and direct vacation of a District Court's decree entered pursuant to the
Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate.
Hazel-Atlas commenced the present suit in November, 1941, by filing in the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for leave to file a bill of review in the District
Court to set aside a judgment entered by that Court against Hazel in 1932 pursuant
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate. Hazel contended that the Circuit
Court of Appeals' judgment had been obtained by fraud, and supported this charge
with affidavits and exhibits. Hartford-Empire, in whose favor the challenged
judgment had been entered, did not question the appellate court's power to consider
the petition, but filed counter affidavits and exhibits. After a hearing, the Circuit

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 27 of 253 PageID 2716

Court concluded that, since the alleged fraud had been practiced on it, rather than
the District Court, it would pass on the issues of fraud itself, instead of sending the
case to the District Court. An order was thereupon entered denying the petition as
framed but granting Hazel leave to amend the prayer of the petition to ask that the
Circuit Court itself hear and determine the issue of fraud. Hazel accordingly
amended, praying that the 1932 judgments against it be vacated and for such other
relief as might be just. Hartford then replied and filed additional exhibits and
affidavits. The following facts were shown by the record without dispute
Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic
power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments
The question remains as to what disposition should be made of this case. Hartford's
fraud, hidden for years but now admitted, had its genesis in the plan to publish an
article for the deliberate purpose of deceiving the Patent Office. The plan was
executed, and the article was put to fraudulent use in the Patent Office, contrary to
law. U.S.C. Title 35, 69; United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S.
315. From there, the trail of fraud continued without break through the District
Court and up to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Had the District Court learned of the
fraud on the Patent Office at the original infringement trial, it would have been
warranted in dismissing Hartford's case. In a patent case where the fraud certainly
was not more flagrant than here, this Court said:
Had the corruption of Clutter been disclosed at the trial . . . , the court
undoubtedly would have been warranted in holding it sufficient to require
dismissal of the cause of action there alleged for the infringement of the
Downie patent.
Keystone Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 290 U. S. 246; cf. Morton
Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., supra, 314 U. S. 493-494. So also could the Circuit
Court of Appeals have dismissed the appeal had it been aware of Hartford's corrupt
activities in suppressing the truth concerning the authorship of the article. The total
effect of all this fraud, practiced both on the Patent Office and the courts, calls for
nothing less than a complete denial of relief to Hartford for the claimed
infringement of the patent thereby procured and enforced.
Since the judgments of 1932 therefore must be vacated, the case now stands in the
same position as though Hartford's corruption had been exposed at the original trial.
In this situation, the doctrine of the Keystone case, supra, requires that Hartford be
denied relief.
The judgment is reversed with directions to set aside the 1932 judgment of the
Circuit Court of Appeals, recall the 1932 mandate, dismiss Hartford's appeal, and
issue mandate to the District Court directing it to set aside its judgment entered
pursuant to the Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate, to reinstate its original judgment
denying relief to Hartford, and to take such additional action as may be necessary
and appropriate.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 28 of 253 PageID 2717

Future taxpayers will bear the financial burden when citizens similarly deprived of their
property through fraud upon the court flood back to the courts for remedy.
Federal Courts have original jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Plaintiffs claim
Tillerys decision in LNV v. Breitlings is unconstitutional; and have since he made it. In the
related case previously removed to this court as Case # 3:14-cv-03322-M-BN Magistrate Judge
David L. Horan in his findings conclusions and recommendations (Document 42 filed October
29, 2014) states:
Plaintiffs motion to remand and all of the other motions are not yet ripe, but the
undersigned concludes that there is no need to wait for further briefing where Judge
Tillerys Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 9] is fully briefed and should be granted
The Removing Defendants cite the rule that [a] defendant is considered fraudulently
joined when there is no reasonable possibility that a plaintiff will be able to establish
a cause of action in state court against the defendant. Id. at 4. The Removing
Defendants argue that, [c]onsidering all allegations in the Petition in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs under Texass fair notice pleading standard, there is simply
no reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiffs might recover under any cause of action
asserted against Judge Tillery in this case because he is entitled to judicial immunity,
which is an absolute immunity from both suit and damages. Id. at 5.
Removing Defendants reliance on the doctrine of improper or fraudulent joinder
to excuse Judge Tillerys lack of consent is misplaced... The improper joinder
doctrine deals with matters of diversity jurisdiction, applying a test of whether the
defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff
against an in-state defendant, which stated differently means that there is no
reasonable basis for the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to
recover against an in-state defendant. The improper joinder doctrine that the
Removing Defendants have invoked, therefore, does not address the present situation.
...The Removing Defendants rely exclusively on judicial immunity to argue that there
is simply no reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiffs might recover under any cause
of action asserted against Judge Tillery in this case. But, even if the Removing
Defendants have made this showing as to any claim against Judge Tillery for
damages, the Removing Defendants papers do not address any other relief that
Plaintiffs seek against Judge Tillery, however likely (or not) Plaintiffs may be to
succeed. And that is the Removing Defendants heavy burden...
...As Judge Tillery himself notes in his Motion to Dismiss Subject to his Motion to
Remand under the Texas law that a state court would apply to resolve Plaintiffs
claims against Judge Tillery, judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive
relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity or to attorneys fees, for

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 29 of 253 PageID 2718

obtaining such relief, ...Plaintiffs petition prays for any other equitable relief the
court deems just. Dkt. No. 1-5 at 24; Dkt. No. 15-5 at 24. And the Removing
Defendants themselves attached Plaintiffs pending Motion to Vacate to their removal
papers. See Dkt. No. 15-7. In that motion, Plaintiffs requested, among other things,
that the state court sanction Judge Tillery and attorney Jeffery Hardaway so they
cannot deprive another Texan of their constitutional right to due process. Id. at 4 of
39. Plaintiffs motion also attached and purported to incorporate and reallege the
arguments in a prior motion to vacate in which Plaintiffs asked the state court to,
among other things, remove Judge Tillery from the bench and sanction him and
Hardaway with disbarment. Id. at 4 of 39, 33 of 39; see also Dkt. No. 1-7...
Despite the liberality with which a state court would construe the pro se Plaintiffs
pleadings and requests for relief, the Removing Defendants have not addressed these
matters that seek something other than damages the Court notes that, while denying
that Plaintiffs are seeking prospective injunctive relief against him, Judge Tillery
raised additional grounds in his conditional motion for dismissal precisely because of
the limitation on judicial immunitys scope noted above.
Even assuming the Removing Defendants are correct that [t]he claims against Judge
Tillery for constitutional violations and the servicing and origination-based claims
against LNV and MGC ... raise different factual issues ..., turn on different legal
issues, and will be proven by different evidence, Dkt. No. 17 at 16, a general
description of these claims defies any conclusion that any misjoinder by Plaintiff of
these claims was egregious and that the claims against Judge Tillery are wholly
distinct from, and devoid of any real connection with the controversy at issue, in
Plaintiffs claims against the Removing Defendants. Plaintiffs claims against Judge
Tillery are based on rulings that he made in a lawsuit in favor of LNV and over
Plaintiffs arguments that the subject matter of that case involved MGC, against
whom Plaintiffs were involved in a separate case pending in the Dallas County courts.
See Dkt. Nos. 1-5 & 15-5. By the Removing Defendants own description, in this
case, Plaintiffs also assert claims against LNV and MGC purportedly arising from
the origination and servicing of their loan, Dkt. No. 17 at 2 which are matters at
least related to the case against LNV out of which Plaintiffs allege that their claims
against Judge Tillery arose.
The Removing Defendants and Judge Tillerys motions also suggest that Judge
Tillery could consent only to removal of claims other than the claims against him or
that this Court could sever only the claims against Judge Tillery and thereby cure the
lack of consent problem. Those arguments are not well taken...
The parties arguments for partial remand are not consistent with governing case law
or the fact that a principal reason for the unanimity-of-removal requirement is to
prevent individual defendants from splitting the plaintiff's claim between state and
federal fora
The unanimity-of-removal requirement may be meant to prevent individual defendants
from splitting the plaintiff's claim between state and federal for a, but nothing has prevented

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 30 of 253 PageID 2719

Defendant LNV and its numerous attorneys from splitting Plaintiffs claim in the present case
between multiple state, federal and several layers of county courts. Defendant LNV seems to
relish any opportunity to snub its nose at legal requirements or ethical standards of conduct.
Counsel for LNV told Judge Barbara Lynn they intended to evict Plaintiffs and there was
nothing she could do about it. Since Tillerys order issued on August 4, 2014 Plaintiffs have
spent between $12,000 and $13,000 defending against all the actions Defendant LNV has
initiated against them in all these different courts.
This single void order is the catalyst which has unconstitutionally caused Plaintiffs to
have to simultaneously defend themselves pro-se in seven (7) different courts on the same issues.
This is not supposed to happen. The fact that it has raises very serious questions about the
constitutionality of the body of Texas law regulating foreclosure and evictions, and the integrity
of the Texas judiciary.
This single void order has prevented Plaintiffs from finding legal counsel. As soon as an
attorney learns that they are spread across all these different courts most attorneys decline to take
their case; and if they are still open to it attorneys require an astronomical retainer far beyond
Plaintiffs ability to pay. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides for mandatory legal
counsel for Defendants in criminal cases because those convicted of crimes may be deprived of
life or liberty; but Plaintiffs and the other LNV/Beal victims have been deprived of their liberty
to make financial decisions specific to their property and they have deprived of the quality of life
they once enjoyed before they became victims of mortgage and foreclosure fraud; many of these
victims have become impoverished as a result of the crimes perpetrated against them. They have
been deprived of their liberty and their quality of life for many years; and they have been unable

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 31 of 253 PageID 2720

to obtain legal counsel. It is time to address problems in our judicial system that a cause
unconstitutional out-comes.
Defendant LNVs use of this unconstitutionally and fraudulently obtained void order to
illegally sale Plaintiffs property to itself and to attempt to evict Plaintiffs from their home of
thirty-three (33) years has caused Plaintiffs unimaginable harm that will affect them and their
heirs for many years to come.
From Black's Law Dictionary: DUE COURSE OF LAW. This phrase is synonymous
with due process of law, or the law of the land, and the general definition thereof is law in its
regular course of administration through courts of justice; and, while not always necessarily
confined to judicial proceedings, yet these words have such a signification, when used to
designate the kind of an eviction, or ouster, from real estate by which a party is dispossessed, as
to preclude thereunder proof of a constructive eviction resulting from the purchase of a
paramount title when hostilely asserted by the party holding it. Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v.
City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R. 1058.
From Black's Law Dictionary: In American law. A taking away; confiscation; as the
deprivation of a constitutional right. Thus a taking of property without due process of law;
Sundlun v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Pawtucket, 50 R.I. 108, 145 A. 451, 454; or of
liberty. Lynch v. City of Muskogee, D.C.Okl., 47 F.Supp. 589, 592. To take. The term has this
meaning in a constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of his property without
due process of law, and denotes a taking altogether, a seizure, a direct appropriation,
dispossession of the owner. Brown v. City of Atlanta, 167 Ga. 416, 145 S.E. 855, 857. It
connotes want of consent. Sandel v. State, 104 S.E. 567, 571, 115 S.C. 168, 13 A.L.R. 1268.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 32 of 253 PageID 2721

Plaintiffs hereby move this federal court to immediately vacate Tillerys void issued in
LNV v. Breitlings so as to unravel all the injustices perpetrated on Plaintiffs as a result of that
single void order. This court not only has the jurisdiction to do so; it has a constitutional
obligation to do so.
Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that a court may grant relief from judgment
where a new matter "clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of
which the injured party could not have availed himself before judgment. Marine Ins. Co. of
Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332, 336 (1813). He further emphasized that an
Article III court can grant relief where the "equity of the applicant [is] free from doubt,"

and

where a judgment "would be against conscience for the person who has obtained it to avail
himself." Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied).
A void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and
does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the
case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a persons due process rights, or
where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order
to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In
instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because
they are already void. People ex. re. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66
(Ill.App.2 Dist. 1994).
A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction
over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or
an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 33 of 253 PageID 2722

collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank
Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill.
APp. 1 Dist. 2000).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that your Honorable Judge Jane Boyle will immediately
vacate the void judgment ordered by Dale B. Tillery in LNV v. Breitlings; and vacate the sale of
Plaintiffs property to LNV as a result of this void order; and vacate the various unconstitutional
eviction orders issued in the various county courts.

Respectfully Submitted,

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 34 of 253 PageID 2723

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served upon all counsel of record and pro-se parties via the Courts CM/ECF system, email,
and/or regular mail, and/or certified mail with return receipt requested; and that a correct copy of
the foregoing document was served upon The United States Attorney General and the Texas
Attorney General at the addresses below:

Attorney General of Texas,


Ken Paxton
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711
Marc Cabera, Jason Sanders,
Robert Mowery
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave, # 2200
Dallas, TX 75201

Macdonald Devin, PC
Codilis & Stawiarski
3800 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
U. S. Department of Justice,
Loretta Lynch,
U. S. Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 35 of 253 PageID 2724

Plaintiffs Exhibit A

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 36 of 253 PageID 2725

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 37 of 253 PageID 2726

Plaintiffs Exhibit B

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 38 of 253 PageID 2727

Beal Bank at
6000 Legacy
Drive is A

A Google map search for 7195 Dallas Parkway,


Plano, TX and 6000 Legacy Drive show that they
are not located In the same building on the
corner as stated by Bret Maloney. The building
doesnt wrap this far.

1795 Dallas Parkway is on the corner


of Dallas Parkway and Tennyson
Parkway.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 39 of 253 PageID 2728

Plaintiffs Exhibit C

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 40 of 253 PageID 2729

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE:
)
)
Judge Carol A. Doyle
CHRISTOPHER T. SWIFT and)
MARCIA A. SWIFT,
)
No. 12-35690
)
Debtors.
)
Chapter 13
RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF
BRET MALONEY
JULY 11, 2014
10:00 A.M.
Called as a witness herein, pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy
Court, pertaining to the taking of depositions, before
WENDY M. STRICKLER, C.S.R., License No. 084-003257,
qualified and commissioned for the State of Illinois,
taken at 900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150, Oak Brook,
Illinois.

COUNSEL PRESENT:
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, by
MR. PAUL M. BACH and
MS. PENNY BACH
900 Jorie Boulevard
Suite 150
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
appeared on behalf of the Debtors;

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 41 of 253 PageID 2730

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

2
1
2

COUNSEL PRESENT: (Contd.)


FREEDMAN, ANSELMO, LINDBERG, by
MR. CHRIS IARIA

1771 W. Diehl Road


Suite 120

4
5

Naperville, Illinois

60563

appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 42 of 253 PageID 2731

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

3
1
2
3
4
5

I N D E X
WITNESS:
BRET MALONEY
Examination by Mr. Bach
Examination by Ms. Bach
Examination by Mr. Iaria

PAGE
4
108
122

6
7

E X H I B I T S
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition

Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.

No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

5
38
40
43
61
63
74
74
74
83
90
91

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 43 of 253 PageID 2732

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

4
1

MS. REPORTER:

My name is Wendy Strickler.

am affiliated with County Court Reporters, Inc.

address is 600 S. County Farm Road, Wheaton, Illinois,

60187. The date is July 11, 2014.

a.m., and we are at 900 Jorie Boulevard, Oakbrook,

Illinois.

My

The time is 10:05

The deponent's name is Bret Maloney.

(Witness sworn.)

8
9

MR. BACH:

Let the record reflect that this is

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 30(b)(6)

10

Deposition of Bret Maloney, which is taken pursuant to

11

Notice that was previously given and ordered to occur by

12

today by the Honorable Judge Cassling.

13

BRET MALONEY,

14

called as a witness herein, having been first duly

15

sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

16

EXAMINATION

17

BY MR. BACH:

18

Q.

Sir, could you please state your name.

19

A.

It's Bret Maloney.

20

Q.

Can you please spell it.

21

A.

B-R-E-T, M-A-L-O-N-E-Y.

22

Q.

And what is your business address?

23

A.

7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas, 75024.

24

Q.

And who are you employed by?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 44 of 253 PageID 2733

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

5
1

A.

MGC Mortgage, Inc.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Yes.

Q.

And why is that?

A.

For a deposition in regards to the Swift

Do you know why you are here today?

bankruptcy.

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 1 was marked for

Identification as of this

10

date.)

11

BY MR. BACH:

12

Q.

Okay.

Now, before we get -- I am going to

13

show you what I have marked as Maloney Deposition 1,

14

which is here, and I have a copy for your Counsel, which

15

is just a Notice of Deposition.

16

Have you seen this document before?

17

A.

I have.

18

Q.

And when did you first see it?

19

A.

I first saw it a couple of months ago, when I

20
21

was asked to be the witness to attend the deposition.


Q.

Prior to seeing this document and hearing

22

about this deposition, had you ever had any contact with

23

the Swift case before?

24

A.

Not that I am aware of, no.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 45 of 253 PageID 2734

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

6
1

Q.

Chris Swift?

A.

Not that I recall.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, this document is pursuant to -- as you

Have you ever talked to Marcia Shift or to

Now, have you reviewed that document?

heard me say just a couple minutes ago, pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(B)(6).

what that means?

Do you know

10

A.

No.

11

Q.

A 30(B)(6) deposition allows me to take a

12

statement from a designated officer, director of a

13

party, and it allows -- it has a list of inquiries to

14

which you are -- by disclosing you as a witness, you are

15

the most knowledgeable person, or the person able to

16

answer all of these.

17
18

Have you read the entire list of topics


that we intend to talk about today?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

And are you prepared to talk about all those

21

topics?

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

What did you review today in order to prepare

24

for this deposition?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 46 of 253 PageID 2735

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

7
1

A.

I reviewed the original notes, I have reviewed

the mortgage, the assignments of mortgage.

reviewed the servicing notes, the payment histories, the

foreclosure default letter, correspondence, the

pleadings, both bankruptcy docs., the bankruptcy plans.

I am trying to recall what else I reviewed.

that's about it.

8
9

Q.

Okay.

I have

I think

Well, we will get into the actual list

in a second, and that you have seen it.

A lot of the

10

purpose of this deposition, as far as I am concerned, is

11

to clear up a lot of questions that I have regarding the

12

facts, okay?

Originally, there were documents by LNV

13

Corporation.

You have told me that you are employed by

14

MGC Servicing.

15
16
17
18

Let's start with you telling me about the


relationship between those two entities.
A.

Okay.

MGC Mortgage, Inc. is the servicer for

LNV Corporation.

19

Q.

Okay.

20

A.

Yes.

21

Q.

Is there -- Are they owned by the same

22

Is that always the case?

parties?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And who is that?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 47 of 253 PageID 2736

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

8
1

A.

Beal Financial Corp.

Q.

Beal Financial Corp.

I have also seen Beal

Bank U.S.A., and that is that is a Federal bank as far

as I could -- as far as I could tell.

true?

MR. IARIA:

ambiguous.

like FCC insured?

Is that not

Can you define or -- It's kind of

Can you define, "Federal bank?"

MR. BACH:

Do you mean

That's part of what I am saying.

10

But from what I am seen, it's called Beal Bank U.S.A.,

11

which usually means that it's a bank.

12

important point, but what is the -- what is the

13

relationship between Beal Bank as well as the other two

14

entities that you have already mentioned?

15

A.

It's not an

They are all affiliated companies under the

16

same corporate umbrella underneath Beal Financial

17

Corporation.

18

Q.

So if I understand that -- please correct me

19

if I am wrong -- that they are really one -- They are

20

different entities.

21

perspective.

22

carried out by each one.

23
24

A.

No.

I understand that from a legal

But there are different functions that are


Is that really what it is?

They are different entities that are made

up underneath that corporate umbrella.

I don't think

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 48 of 253 PageID 2737

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

9
1

there is any -- I don't know as far as the functionality

goes.

Q.

Okay.

Does MGC only service for Beal Bank --

Beal -- I forgot the other entities that you

mentioned --

they are a parent company?

Beal, the management -- It sounds like

A.

MGC Mortgage, Inc. services for Beal Bank --

Q.

That's what I want to know.

A.

-- LLP Mortgage, LNV Corporation and Beal Bank

10

U.S.A.

11

Q.

Those are the only ones, correct?

12

A.

We do have a relationship where we are

13

servicing and own some loans that are, I believe, Fannie

14

Mae, but it's a very small number.

15

Q.

Meaning that they are owned by Fannie Mae or

16

that they are -- or they are Fannie Mae-type loans,

17

which are -- which are --

18

A.

They are owned by Fannie Mae, serviced by MGC.

19

Q.

Okay.

20
21
22
23
24

Do you have an idea of what percentage

of the business that that would be?


A.

Less than half a percent.

I mean, it's very

small.
Q.

Okay.

Is there also a relationship between

CLMG Corp.?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 49 of 253 PageID 2738

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

10
1

A.

There is.

Q.

And what is CLMG Corp.?

A.

CLMG Corp. is the commercial loan servicer

underneath that same corporate umbrella.

also is the custodian of the original loan documents.

6
7
8
9

Q.

So they keep all original loan documents for

A.

For all of those different entities that I

whom?

have previously mentioned.

10

Q.

11

Corporation?

12

A.

13
14

CLMG Corp.

And how about Property Acceptance

Also another affiliated company underneath

that same corporate structure.


Q.

Okay.

Are there any other -- besides the ones

15

we have talked about, besides that, any other affiliated

16

companies?

17

A.

LAC, Loan Acceptance Corporation.

Those are

18

the only ones that I am aware of that are tied to the

19

residential side.

20
21
22

Q.

And what does LAC, Loan Acceptance

Corporation, do?
A.

I am not quite sure, because I don't have very

23

much involvement with them, other than I know that they

24

purchase loans on behalf of the other entities.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 50 of 253 PageID 2739

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

11
1
2

Q.

by LNV or Beal Bank?

3
4

A.

That, I am not aware of how that -- How the

loans go into which investor.

5
6

Is there a reason why certain loans are held

Q.

Now, is there a contract between all of these

different entities on how this is one?

A.

Again, I am not aware of that.

Q.

So you don't know if there is a contract -- I

9
10

will just give you an example -- between MGC, who you


said that you were employed by, and Beal Bank?

11
12

A.

No.

There is a servicing agreement between

Beal Bank and MGC.

13

Q.

Okay.

Is this also the same servicing

14

agreement -- the same servicing agreement from LNV and

15

MGC?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

It has the same sort of terms is what you're

18

saying?

19

A.

As far as the servicing agreement, yes.

20

Q.

And what sort of terms are those?

21

looking for a general idea.

22

MR. IARIA:

23

THE WITNESS:

24

I am

Objection to vague.
It's just talks about the

servicing of the loans and the relationship of MGC being

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 51 of 253 PageID 2740

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

12
1

the servicer for those different entities.

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Okay.

Does it include that MGC accepts funds

on behalf of the other companies and then writes them a

check for the loan payment?

6
7
8
9

A.

I would have to look at the agreement to see

specifically if that's mentioned in there.


Q.

I am just trying to understand.

Like if MGC

gets a loan payment from somebody, the Swifts, or

10

anybody else, and it's $2,000, okay, because I know a

11

lot of servicing agreements you don't have to pay to the

12

investors and people actually own the loan because

13

that's who would get the money.

14

A.

Right.

15

Q.

I would guess there is some sort of an

16

agreement that says that at that point MGC would then

17

write the check to the owner of the loan, which could be

18

in this case, Beal Bank U.S.A. or LMV or one of the

19

other companies you mentioned.

20

right?

21

A.

It sounds about right.

22

Q.

Okay.

Does that sound about

Now, besides the companies we

23

mentioned, you said, "on the residential side."

24

did you mean by that?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

What

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 52 of 253 PageID 2741

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

13
1

A.

I work on the residential side of MGC

Mortgage.

CLMG.

don't know all the different entities that they have or

investors that are set up under the CLMG side.

6
7
8
9

There is a commercial division under the

There may be different entities over there.

Q.

Now, do most of them have an address for 7195

Dallas Parkway?
A.

The LMV does, MGC does.

LPP is 6000 Legacy Drive.

I believe Beal and

It's actually the same

10

building, just two different streets that merge.

11

are listed under 6000 Legacy Drive, the others are

12

listed under 7195 Dallas Parkway.

13
14

Q.

Some

What's the difference between one or the

other, if you know?

15

A.

I don't.

16

Q.

At 7195 Dallas Parkway, there is actually a

17
18
19
20

building?
A.

At the corner of 7195 Dallas Parkway and 6000

Legacy Drive, there is a building, yes.


Q.

Now, before we get into a lot of other topics,

21

why don't you give me an idea about about your

22

educational history.

23
24

A.

Okay.

I have a Bachelor of Business

Administration, graduated in 1993 from Steven F. Austin

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 53 of 253 PageID 2742

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

14
1

State University.

2
3

Q.

That's located in Nagodoches, Texas.

And you have had no education beyond

Bachelor's degree, correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

And how about your employment history?

A.

How far do you want to go?

Q.

Why don't you give me an idea, when did you

start with the Beal Group of companies.

call it that way.

10

A.

I will just

December of 2000, I started, and I did leave

11

for one year, and that was from June 2007 through August

12

2008.

13

then I came back.

I worked for Saxon Mortgage in Fort Worth, and

14

Q.

Why was that?

15

A.

Because I --

16

MR. IARIA:

17

MR. BACH:

Objection, relevance.
He mentioned it.

18

A.

I enjoyed working for the Beal Corporation.

19

Q.

That's all I expected you to really say.

It

20

was more just a curiosity.

21

little unusual to leave one firm and then come back to

22

another.

23
24

You said you left, so it's a

That's the point I was trying to make.


Before 2000, when you started working for

the Beal Group of companies, did you work for another

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 54 of 253 PageID 2743

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

15
1

banking institution or do other types of jobs before

that?

A.

No, other types of jobs before that.

Q.

So the first time you had any access, any

experience with banking, was about 2000, correct?

A.

December 2000.

Q.

And why don't you give me an idea of the type

of positions that you have held.

always worked for MGC, correct?

I assume you have

10

A.

MGC, since August 2008 until present.

11

Q.

Okay.

12
13

So who did you technically work with

before August 2008?


A.

Saxon Mortgage from June 2007 to August 2008.

14

It was Beal Service Corporation from December of 2000

15

through June of 2007.

16
17
18

Q.

Was that just a change in name or was that a

separate company that no longer exists?


A.

There was a change in the name.

Beal Service

19

Corporation still does exist, but the residential side

20

change to MGC Mortgage in early 2008.

21
22

Q.

So it was more of a split between the

residential and the commercial, correct?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Now, getting back to the deposition, I

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 55 of 253 PageID 2744

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

16
1

initially asked you when you first had -- you said a

couple months ago, okay.

some problems with your family I understood, correct?

We had agreed upon you had

A.

Yes.

Q.

With your father-in-law is what I understood,

6
7
8
9

correct?
A.

Yes.

He went in the hospital for three weeks

and then eventually passed.


Q.

I'm sorry to hear about it.

That's why we

10

kept continuing it, because family is much more

11

important than anything in law or a court case, and I

12

get that, and you have my condolences for that.

13

A.

And I appreciate that.

14

Q.

Then we set it for June 5th, and then we had

15

some legal issues that came up.

16

ticket to come here on June 5th?

Thank you.

Did you have a plane

17

A.

I did.

18

Q.

Okay.

19

of that day?

20

A.

Yes.

21

Q.

But you did have travel arrangements for that

22

So you were going to arrive on June 4th

day, correct?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Okay.

Now, we spent some time talking about

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 56 of 253 PageID 2745

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

17
1

the Beal Group of companies in terms of the servicing

and all those sort of things.

computer system that they share?

4
5
6
7

A.

On the residential side, yes.

Commercial side

uses a totally different system.


Q.

I am obviously more interested in the consumer

residential side.

A.

Right.

Q.

For obvious reasons.

10

Do they have the same

So why why don't we just

confine ourselves to that for right now.

11

A.

Okay.

12

Q.

But it's the same computer -- from what I

13

understand, it's the same computer system, whether the

14

loan is technically owned by Beal Bank U.S.A. or it's

15

owned by LMV, correct?

16

A.

That is correct.

17

Q.

Now, in terms of computer systems, what

18

software is being used, LPS Mortgage Platform?

19

use LPS for any functions?

20

MR. IARIA:

Objection, vague.

21

understand the question.

22

BY MR. BACH:

23

Q.

24

Did you

I don't

By LPS, you mean Lender Processing Services,

correct?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 57 of 253 PageID 2746

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

18
1

A.

Correct.

Q.

Besides for the computer platform, do you use

them for -- Do you use them for anything else?

MR. IARIA:

Objection.

Ambiguous.

I don't

know where you're going with this, by functions or

anything else.

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

If you can just clarify.

You have a computer system that was written --

the software was written by LPS, correct?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

You obviously get computer services from

12

them.

13

represent you in various matters?

Do you use them for -- to find attorneys to

14

A.

You're talking about LPS Desktop?

15

Q.

Yes.

16

A.

Our subservicer does.

17

Q.

Who is the subservicer?

18

A.

Dovenmuehle.

19

Q.

What's Dovenmuehle's -- I know they are --

20

dobin Mule is in not too far from here, in Lake Zurich.

21

A.

That's correct.

22

Q.

What is their function in all of this?

23
24

some names we mentioned a little bit earlier.


A.

They are the subservicers for our Legacy

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

I got

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 58 of 253 PageID 2747

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

19
1

portfolio.

2
3
4

They handle all the day-to-day operations.

Q.

When you mean Legacy portfolio, what do you

A.

The loans that are owned by each of those

mean?

different entities, that there is no other -- Let me

clarify this.

portfolio wholly owned between all those different

investors, then another portfolio that's under an

agreement with the FDIC with a loss-share agreement,

10

I have two portfolios.

One is a Legacy

segregated with the different subservicers.

11

Q.

Also a different subservicer?

12

A.

Cenlar.

13

Q.

Cenlar handles the one that has also shared

14

agreements is what you're saying?

15

A.

Correct.

16

Q.

That's a different -- every other loan is a

17

Legacy loan besides that, correct?

18

A.

That is correct.

19

Q.

Which meant -- just so I make sure we're on

20

the same page -- I understand it was a loss-share

21

agreement.

22

over another bank.

23

correct?

24

A.

That usually means that the FDIC had taken


You bought assets from the FDIC,

Correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 59 of 253 PageID 2748

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

20
1

Q.

And then the FDIC and who then who enters into

an agreement?

we have talked about or were there specialized -- Is

there a certain -- It's only Cenlar you mentioned?

5
6

Would it be one of these companies that

MR. IARIA:

Objection, relevance to this

case.

MR. BACH:

whole thing.

A.

I am just trying to understand the

The owners of the loss-share ones are under

10

Beal Bank and LPS Mortgage, and those are all being

11

serviced by Cenlar.

12

Q.

So Legacy could have any of the ones we

13

discussed already, correct, or Legacy is part of the

14

Legacy portfolio?

15

A.

Everything else outside of the FDIC loss

17

A.

C-E-N-L-A-R.

18

Q.

Who owns the LPS Mortgage Platform?

16

year.
Cenlar.
Is the

19

program actually sold to you or is it on a lease

20

agreement?

21

MR. IARIA:

22

THE WITNESS:

23

BY MR. BACH:

24

Q.

Objection, relevance.
I don't know.

That's fine.

What does LPS Mortgage Platform do on a

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 60 of 253 PageID 2749

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

21
1

general basis, what kind of functions does it serve?

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

Objection, vague and relevancy.


It's where all loan information

is housed with regards to where payment applications are

made, where the notes are documented on the system.

has, you know, each of the different areas of

functionality, bankruptcy, loss mitigation, foreclosure,

the different templates that would be opened up for

those different areas.

10

Q.

It

So it basically takes care of any function

11

within -- that you would need to service a loan,

12

correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Is there anything it does not take care of?

15

A.

Can you be more specific?

16

Q.

I don't know.

I don't know much about

17

mortgage.

18

takes care of all the functions basically that you would

19

need, it sounded like, but that was more just to

20

conclude that?

21

A.

That's not my job.

I am just wondering.

It

I think everything that is needed for the

22

daily operations to servicing the loan would be in that

23

system.

24

Q.

So it takes care of accounting, management and

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 61 of 253 PageID 2750

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

22
1

reporting, all of those things, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Now within the plat -- the LPS Mortgage

Platform, how does it keep images or copies of documents

that are related to a particular file?

A.

Anything that's entered onto the records, such

as the notes or the payment history transactions, that

is kept on the system.

letters, correspondence, all that would be in a document

10
11

Any of the letters or any

scan imaging system that's separate from that system.


Q.

Can you access it from the LPS Platform?

12

MR. IARIA:

13

specify, "accessed?"

14

BY MR. BACH:

15

Q.

Objection.

Can you

Meaning if you're looking -- Let's just be

16

blunt, as I say.

17

account, okay, if you're looking at the Swifts' account,

18

if there are letters that were sent to them, can someone

19

pull them up?

20

A.

Yes.

If you're looking at the Swifts'

You would have access to that document

21

scanning image system, but not from inside the LPS

22

System.

23

Q.

How would you have to get them?

24

A.

You would have to have access to that

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 62 of 253 PageID 2751

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

23
1
2

platform.
Q.

Okay.

So maybe I guess we will go back.

copies of documents are kept on a different platform

than the LPS Mortgage Platform?

A.

Yes.

So

So if it shows that a letter was

transmitted -- The letters would be generated off of the

system if there was anything sent out to the loans.

document would then be scanned and imaged into a

document scanning imaging system, and then it would be

10
11
12
13

The

housed in that system.


Q.

So if someone wanted to get a copy of letters,

how would they do it?


A.

Would go into the document imaging system, put

14

in the loan number, and then it would pull up the list

15

of the documents, and you would go there and select the

16

document that you're requesting.

17
18

Q.

So it's not a difficult thing.

And how long

would that take?

19

A.

Seconds, minutes.

20

Q.

Now, is the same thing true is if as part of

21

the escrow -- I am just trying to understand your

22

system -- as part of the escrow you make -- you pay some

23

taxes, you pay some real estate taxes, right?

24

A.

Mm-hmm.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 63 of 253 PageID 2752

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

24
1

Q.

There is obviously -- at least if I am going

to pay something, I want to keep an invoice and I want

to have a copy of the check which shows that it was sent

out.

Is that done as well in the same way?

A.

It would be imaged, yes.

Q.

Okay.

7
8
9
10

Is that part of the LPS Platform or

part of the other platform that we were discussing?


A.

It would be -- the actual transaction would

take place in the transaction.

In the payment history

notes, it would show if a payment was disbursed.

11

Q.

Right.

12

A.

The checks and/or statements or invoices, as

13

you will, would have been scanned and imaged into the

14

document imaging system.

15
16

Q.

So you would have kept the invoice, correct,

or a copy of the bill that you were paying?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And it would be very easily accessible,

19

correct?

20

A.

It should be, yes.

21

Q.

And the same would be true if, for instance,

22

there was -- let's say many times mortgage servicers

23

choose to do property inspections of properties that are

24

in foreclosure, correct?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 64 of 253 PageID 2753

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

25
1

A.

Say that one more time.

Q.

Property inspections.

A.

Okay.

Q.

Okay.

I see them quite often on proof of

claims, that's why I know that they happen.

A.

Sure.

Q.

So you have a property inspection that takes

place, and obviously the person that goes out to the

property wants to make sure that they get paid for their

10

work.

11

check.

12

of transaction?

They send you an invoice and you send them a


Is the same information cataloged for that type

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And it's easily accessible, as you said, all

15

someone has to do is just print it out?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Are there additional -- Strike that.

How does

18

the software system track delinquencies?

19

you when someone hasn't paid after the 15-day grace

20

period?

21

A.

Does it tell

Do you get a report?


Yeah.

I mean, you would have a report that

22

would, of course, pull it to see which loans are

23

actually delinquent at that point.

24

be report-generated.

But, yes, it would

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 65 of 253 PageID 2754

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

26
1

Q.

Does the software automatically charge a fee

for like a late -- for like a late payment after 15

days, or does it require a human to actually assess it?

A.

system.

guy, so --

The late fees are set up in the computer


It's programmed in there.

I am not an IT tech

Q.

That's fine.

A.

I couldn't explain that, but it's set up based

on the terms of the note.

So if the note says on Day 16

10

that we need to assess a late fee of five percent of

11

whatever it says in the note, then it would assess that

12

to that loan at that point in time.

13

Q.

So we're going to come back to a little more

14

discussion because we're going to pull out the pay

15

history and go through it line by line in a little bit,

16

but let's move on to some of the other basic things that

17

I have.

18

MR. IARIA:

Paul, just as a -- Sorry to cut

19

you off here.

20

regarding pay history and some other charts that you

21

weren't in possession of.

22

go off the record for a second and take a look, and

23

maybe the version we have here is the numbers are done

24

in a way that's probably easier to follow for the

We do have some additional documents

I don't know if you want to

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 66 of 253 PageID 2755

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

27
1

purposes of a deposition.

2
3

MR. BACH:
heard so much about?

Is it the XLS spread sheet I have


Looks sort of like that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How many copies?

A.

I brought four or five copies of that.

There

is two separate ones.

the first bankruptcy, and then everything subsequently

after it was dismissed.

10

Q.

Once includes from origination to

Well, are there any other documents you

11

brought with you just so I know ahead of time?

12

the original stuff?

13

A.

I did.

Besides

I can go get that.

When you were talking about the

14

invoices before, we also put together this, and I can

15

take it out if you want me to, if you want to make

16

copies.

17

the charges and everything is color coated, and the

18

corresponding invoices that are tied to each one of

19

those different charges.

It shows the POC breakdown on the summary for

20

Q.

Okay.

And I can keep these, correct?

21

A.

Yeah.

This will be yours.

Q.

Okay.

Leave that there.

22
23
24

I have extras as

well.
Let's go through a

couple more of the basic things and then we can go back,

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 67 of 253 PageID 2756

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

28
1

and I appreciate that.

A basic question is that I have is before

you got involved -- and obviously I can see from your

card that you are a senior vice president -- I am

guessing that's what SVP stands for, correct?

A.

That is correct.

Q.

Could be special vice president, but I didn't

think that they would do that to you.

you are pretty high up in the chain of command,

10

But I assume that

correct?

11

A.

Within MGC, yes.

12

Q.

How many -- I will ask this question.

13

How

many senior vice presidents are there?

14

A.

Under MGC, I am the only one.

15

Q.

Okay.

And you have default management because

16

that's basically what -- Are there any other functions

17

besides that that someone else takes care of or do you

18

take care of all the vice presidential type things, or

19

are there other vice presidents that takes of other

20

things which are not a senior vice president?

21

A.

There is another vice president who is vice

22

president of operations and compliance, and then there

23

is my CCO who would be above me.

24

Q.

Okay.

Mr. Beal has a position there, too?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 68 of 253 PageID 2757

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

29
1

A.

Owner.

Q.

Okay.

Owner.

But he doesn't have any items

of responsibilities type things?

A.

Not that I am aware of, no.

Q.

Do you have contact with him on a regular

basis?

A.

I do not.

Q.

Did anybody at MGC or any of the other Beal

9
10

companies assist you in getting ready for this


deposition?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And who with that be?

13

A.

Chris Whiteley.

14

Q.

How do you spell that, please?

15

A.

W-H-I-T-E-L-E-Y.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

A.

Israel Brown.

18

Q.

Anybody else?

19

A.

No.

20

Q.

And what are both of their job functions?

21

A.

Chris is the bankruptcy quality control

22

Anybody else?

analyst and Israel is a default analyst.

23

Q.

Are they located in the office in Texas?

24

A.

Yes.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 69 of 253 PageID 2758

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

30
1

Q.

They are both employees of MGC?

A.

Correct.

Q.

What was Israel's job again?

A.

Default analyst.

Q.

I'm sorry.

MR. IARIA:

period.

BY MR. BACH:

10

Q.

MR. IARIA:
BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

17
18
19

Specify a time

Let us say from the time the case -- let's go

13

16

Objection.

from the time the case was filed.

12

15

Before you got involved, who was

responsible for this file, meaning the Swifts' file?

11

I'm sorry.

The second bankruptcy?

The second bankruptcy, meaning that would have

been in October of 2012, if I remember correctly.


A.

I don't know who exactly was responsible for

this file.
Q.

Was it being done out of Chicago, out of

Texas, meaning Dovenmuehle, is what I am getting at.

20

A.

It would have been done out of Dovenmuehle.

21

Q.

It was being done by someone at the facility

22

in Lake Zurich, correct?

23

A.

Correct.

24

Q.

I wanted to ask you about something.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

I will

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 70 of 253 PageID 2759

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

31
1
2
3

get to that in a second.


A.

Who is Grant Hamilton?

Grant is the vice president of operations and

compliance, and he is also associated general counsel.

Q.

Is he out of Texas as well?

A.

He is.

Q.

And all three have the same address as you,

correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

So sitting here today, you don't have any

10

knowledge about who at Dovenmuehle was handling the

11

Swifts' case, correct?

12

A.

The specific person?

13

Q.

Yeah,?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

A department?

16

A.

Their bankruptcy department.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

Could you determine who at Dovenmuehle

was handling it?

19

A.

I would be able to find out, yes.

20

Q.

Okay.

Would that be available on the

21

servicing notes that you mentioned that you reviewed

22

today?

23
24

A.

I don't think so.

I mean, there are notes

that are entered in there by multiple individuals.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

So

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 71 of 253 PageID 2760

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

32
1

as far as who was specifically assigned that file, I

wouldn't be able to tell from the notes.

Q.

And maybe it's just my ignorance.

As you

probably have guessed, I am a debtors attorney.

never worked in foreclosing mortgages or worked on that

side, so I am not trying to sound like I am being

condescending or anything like that.

explain to me in this type of a bankruptcy department

that's dealing with loans that are in default, is a

I have

Perhaps you can

10

specific person assigned to them or is it more just a

11

general responsibility?

12

A.

I don't know.

13

Q.

Now, from -- we talked about -- now I am going

14

to take what we talked about.

15

the second bankruptcy you didn't know -- it was someone

16

at Dovenmuehle that was handling it up until the time

17

that this deposition was scheduled.

18

during the first bankruptcy, do you know, was it

19

different than who was responsible for the Swifts' loan?

20
21
22
23
24

A.

We talked about during

Now, before that,

The first bankruptcy, the loan was being

serviced by GMAC.
Q.

Okay.

So the Beal Group of companies did not

own the loan until when?


A.

The loan was purchased from Residential

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 72 of 253 PageID 2761

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

33
1

Funding at or about April of 2008.

Q.

And how do you know that?

A.

The purchase and sales agreement that we

have.

it's documented in our master tracking system in our

document control department.

original loan was actually received.

8
9
10

Also, when we actually receive the original note,

Q.

It shows you when the

Which is that other company -- I put that

chart away -- was the other company that you mentioned,


the name, and I can't --

11

A.

CLMG.

12

Q.

GMAC, they bought it in April of 2008 is what

13

you testified?

14

A.

LNV purchased the loan.

15

Q.

In April of --

16

A.

At or around April 2008.

17

Q.

Why don't we just get into the -- You said

18

that you had the original note, correct, with you?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

And why don't we get that out and go from

21
22
23
24

there and we can do that.


A.

I have a copy of the original note and

original allonge.
Q.

So what I have been handed -- let me just do

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 73 of 253 PageID 2762

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

34
1

it for the record -- is a manila folder with a yellow

sticker on it with a date of 3-4 of 2012, and says, "One

of one.

it says, "Michelle Lewis."

Priority not assigned foreclosure files," and

MR. IARIA:

If I could, that's a sticker from

my firm.

Freedman Anselmo Lindberg.

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

10

What is that, the sticker?

Michelle Lewis is a document custodian at

That's what I wanted to know.

It's

written, "Swift/A" on it by your firm then, correct?

11

MR. IARIA:

Correct.

And I presume that that

12

would be a folder created by Michelle Louis, but I don't

13

know.

14

MR. BACH:

Okay.

15

this.

16

a deposition exhibit.

Perhaps we can make a paper copy that we can make

17

MR. IARIA:

18

MR. BACH:

19

it.

I don't want to attach

If you want to.


I don't want her to have to keep

I want to be able to give it back to you.

20

MR. IARIA:

21

MR. BACH:

Of course.
So perhaps we can have a copy made

22

of these documents without removing the staple and I

23

won't touch that.

24

minutes and I will have that done so we have a

Maybe we can do that.

Give me two

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 74 of 253 PageID 2763

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

35
1

deposition exhibit and go through that.

MR. IARIA:

Sure.

The only thing I would

suggest is maybe if you're going to try and do copies of

all the originals, if we go through it.

5
6

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA:

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA:

14
15
16
17

Why don't we get them all out.

I am going to have to go off the

record and watch the copying process.

12
13

Correct.

That's an excellent --

10
11

Are there other

documents of originals?

That's fine.

MR. BACH:
all.

I have no problem with that at

So this is an additional -A.

This is an additional allonge from LNV to Beal

Bank U.S.A.
Q.

Is there a mortgage?

Did we find the

mortgage?

18

A.

We have a certified copy from the county.

19

Q.

So we don't have the original, correct?

20
21

MR. IARIA:
the original.

22
23
24

My firm is not in possession of

MR. BACH:
Q.

Do you know if CLMG Corporation has the

original?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 75 of 253 PageID 2764

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

36
1

A.

No.

Q.

So as far as you know, the original is

missing?

A.

The original mortgage, yes.

Q.

Now, do we have the collateral file as well?

A.

It's right here.

That's why I am pulling some

of my orignal docs out of it.

recorded assignment from LNV to Beal Bank, U.S.A.,

assignment of mortgage from MERS to LNV Corporation.

10

MR. IARIA:

11

THE WITNESS:

12

MR. BACH:

Don't forget the exhibits.


Sorry.

We are going to do this two

13

different ways.

14

have an exhibit to that.

15

second.

We are going to make copies so we can

16
17

Original assignment,

Let's go off the record for a

(Off the record.)


MR. BACH:

Let's go back on the record.

We

18

went off the record for a second, and I want to make it

19

for the sake of the record, what we did.

20

brought -- the deponent and his attorney brought with

21

him some original documents, the note -- the note which

22

was, as I said before we went off the record, was

23

contained -- the original note was contained in a

24

document from Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg, LLC, that was

The deponent

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 76 of 253 PageID 2765

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

37
1

kept probably -- I am guessing -- when the file was sent

to them for foreclosure purposes.

MR. IARIA:

I think that's an accurate

statement.

actually more detailed information.

signs for it.

If you open up the first page, it has

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA:

I think someone

It has a date of June 20, 2011?


Correct.

I think that would be

their releases to us.

10

MR. BACH:

Okay.

And what we have done is --

11

so that the document, which is the original note, we did

12

not want to remove the staple of the way it is as --

13

when it was brought -- when it was brought in and shown

14

to me.

15

difficult to copy it.

16

Proof of Claim that was filed in this bankruptcy case,

17

which is 12 B 35690, and it's part of Claim 17-1, Part

18

3, which is the top of the document which we are going

19

to say is Deposition Exhibit No. 2.

20

that Maloney Dep Exhibit 2.

21

Exhibit 2.

So we have taken a copy -- because it was


We have taken a copy from the

Okay.

And I am labeling
So this is Dep.

22
23
24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 77 of 253 PageID 2766

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

38
1

(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit

No. 2 was marked for

Identification as of this

date.)

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Now, I am going to hand to you what we have

labeled Dep Exhibit No. 2, and the manila folder that

has the original note, and ask you to compare them and

tell me if there is anything different about them?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

You're saying yes to what?

12

A.

There is a difference between the copy that

13

was provided in the claim and the actual original.

14

Q.

And what is that?

15

A.

There is an extra endorsement on here from RFC

16

to LNV Corporation, Inc., that is not attached to the

17

original note.

18

Q.

Okay.

So there is allonge missing that was

19

attached to the Proof of Claim, but it's not with the

20

original, correct?

21

A.

No.

The one -- the two that are attached here

22

are to LNV from RFC.

23

incorrectly.

24

when somebody sent these for the Proof of Claim, they

One of them was drawn up

It included the LNV Corporation, Inc., so

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 78 of 253 PageID 2767

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

39
1

pulled it off of the document imaging screens that we

talked about earlier.

and the allonges, which would have been under separate

categories in the document imaging system, so somebody

sent you an extra allonge that should have been included

because it's not attached to the note.

7
8

Q.

Okay.

They pulled a copy of the note

Excuse my ignorance.

Does that happen

often?

A.

No.

10

Q.

Have you ever seen that happen before?

11

A.

I have one other time, yes.

12

Q.

And why was that or why -- That's not

13

important why the other one was there.

14

that have happened?

15

A.

But why would

You would have had a new employee who was not

16

used to the different investors and how they are

17

actually supposed to be styled on the allonges, and they

18

would have -- in this case the employee actually added

19

in that ink onto the back of it, but it's just LNV

20

Corporation.

21

Q.

22

Okay.

I am going to come back and we're going

to talk some more about the note.

I promise.

23

A.

Okay.

24

Q.

There is also another original -- Do we have

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 79 of 253 PageID 2768

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

40
1

copies of this?

the original.

you.

doing this so that the court reporter will be able to

have a full copy of the exhibits that we talked about

because we are not going to give the court reporter, for

the record, the original of a note in the mortgage.

think everybody can agree upon that.

will be Maloney Deposition No. 3.

Let's call this Dep Exhibit 3.

This is

I am keeping them separate, I promise

I am labeling this Maloney - as I said, we're

So this document

10

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

11

No. 3 was marked for

12

Identification as of this

13

date.)

14

BY MR. BACH:

15

Q.

16

Now I am going to hand to you Maloney

Deposition No. 3, the original and a copy.

17

A.

Okay.

18

Q.

That has been labeled as an exhibit.

19

you tell us what that is?

20

A.

21

Bank, U.S.A.

22

Q.

23
24

Could

This is the Note Allonge between LNV to Beal

Now, this particular allonge is not attached

to the note, correct?


A.

That is correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 80 of 253 PageID 2769

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

41
1
2

Q.

And what is the date of this allonge?

dated?

A.

It's not dated.

Q.

Okay.

Is it

To your knowledge, do you know what

date that allonge was executed?

A.

Yes.

Actually there is a document in the

collateral file which shows when this was actually

entered into the file.

And let's see when it was

managed into the file.

There is a date at the top that

10

says May 3, 2013.

11

Q.

Okay.

I don't like to -- Let me just ask you

12

a question.

13

Imaging Department," which I am guessing is a department

14

that's used by all Beal Companies, and that's why it

15

says that.

16

2013.

17
18
19

I have been handed to me what says, "Beal

And it says that the print date was 5-3 of

What does that mean?


A.

That was when a copy of the original allonge

was actually put into the actual collateral loan file.


Q.

Okay.

So it would not be wrong if we added --

20

if we made a copy of this document and we added it onto

21

Maloney Deposition Exhibit 3, which is this, because

22

they are really one in the same document that I was

23

handed out of the collateral file, correct?

24

A.

The original note allonge came out of the note

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 81 of 253 PageID 2770

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

42
1

file jacket, which is separate from the collateral

file.

what we will do is the originals would go in there, the

copies would go into the collateral file.

and the allonges would go in that safe.

All the notes are housed in a fireproof safe.

Q.

Okay.

Only the note

Well, then what you're telling me

really is this piece of paper should be Deposition

Exhibit 4 and it should not be attached to the note,

correct?

10

MR. IARIA:

I have no objection to that.

11

don't think it's part of 3.

12

no problem.

13

So

MR. BACH:

If you want to do 4, I have

I am going to call that Deposition

14

Exhibit No. 4.

15

to stop.

16

move forward was the idea.

17

Exhibit 4 will be the green -- a copy of the green piece

18

of paper that says,"Beal Imaging Department," and then

19

has a print date of 5-3-2013 and has a Master Track

20

Number on here of 17105086.

21

sufficiently identify it so we all know what we're

22

talking about.

23

Exhibit 4.

24

A.

We will mark it later on.

I don't want

We have already had enough stoppages.

Let's

So Maloney Deposition

And I think that would

But that will be Maloney Deposition

Okay?
Okay.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 82 of 253 PageID 2771

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

43
1

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 4 was marked for

Identification as this date.)

4
5

MR. BACH:
Q.

Then we can do that.

I assume that there are -- is there a similar

type document that was in the collateral file regarding

the notes -- regarding the note and the allonges that

are a copy, which is Deposition Exhibit No. 2?

A.

With regards to the date of the original being

10

received, that's not in the collateral file.

11

that in another file which shows when the original note

12

was actually cataloged into the system as being

13

received.

14
15
16
17

Q.

Okay.

I do have

In the dock documents that you have or

in some -- You don't have it with you?


A.

I don't have it in the room here with me right

now, no.

18

Q.

So it's back in Texas is what you're saying?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

That's all I want to know.

That's what I was

21

trying to get to.

22

put this, for right now, Deposition Exhibit -- We are

23

going to have someone do that so we don't to stop.

24

us go through -- let's take Deposition Exhibit No. 2,

Let us go back.

I am just going to

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Let

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 83 of 253 PageID 2772

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

44
1

which is the original note.

A.

Okay.

Q.

As I said, I am looking at a copy.

The

original is 8-1/2 X 14, which is the Proof of Claim

exhibit which I am talking about and has been reduced

down to 8-1/2 X 11.

Is that true?

A.

Correct.

Q.

So the original note is four pages long,

correct?

10

A.

Correct.

11

Q.

And then we have an endorsement to the left of

12

the signature, correct, on the last page of the note?

13

am looking at that endorsement first.

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

Now, on this one, it looks like a stamp was

16

originally put on there and, it looks like someone put a

17

different stamp that says, "Residential Funding

18

Company," correct?

19

A.

Correct.

20

Q.

LLC.

And it looks like someone by the name of

21

L. Gray signed it, who was a limiting signing officer,

22

bringing the note from the original payee, who was

23

listed as Ditech, is that correct?

24

is Ditech?

The original payee

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 84 of 253 PageID 2773

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

45
1
2
3

A.

The original lender was GMAC Mortgage, LLC

d/b/a Ditech.com.
Q.

Okay.

So that's the Ditech I was talking

about.

I to understand -- just to understand it, it looks to me

like this endorsement was from GMAC to GMAC -- or to

another GMAC entity called Residential Funding Company,

LLC, correct?

A.

Originally it was GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

And so am

It was an endorsement from GMAC Mortgage, LLC

10

formerly known as GMAC Mortgage Corporation d/b/a

11

Ditech.com to Residential Funding Company, LLC.

12
13

Q.

Which is another GMAC Company.

Do you have

knowledge of that?

14

A.

I do not.

15

Q.

It was the lead debtor in their Chapter 11

16

bankruptcy.

17

but that's what that endorsement does, correct?

That's why I know that.

It's not critical,

18

A.

That is correct.

19

Q.

Do we know when that endorsement was placed on

20

there?

21

that endorsement took place?

22

collateral file?

Do you have any information that could show when


Would that be in the

23

A.

No.

24

Q.

So there is no information to know if that

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 85 of 253 PageID 2774

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

46
1

took place right at the time of the initial loan or it

took place sometime thereafter?

A.

I would not have that knowledge.

Q.

Who would have that knowledge?

A.

Residential Funding Company or GMAC Mortgage.

Q.

But not any Beal company, correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Okay.

9
10

And if the signature from L. Gray is

not genuine, you would have no knowledge of that either,


correct?

11

MR. IARIA:

12

THE WITNESS:

13

BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

15

Objection, calls for speculation.


That's correct.

Just to follow up, you have no knowledge one

way or the other whether that's a genuine signature?

16

A.

I do not.

17

Q.

And there is nothing that you have seen in any

18

materials to indicate one way or the other that you

19

reviewed?

20

A.

No.

21

Q.

For the record, it's hard to read because of

22

the things I have been told.

23

Gray.

24

It says J. Gray, not L.

It's hard to read.


A.

Yeah, I agree.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 86 of 253 PageID 2775

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

47
1

Q.

Just so that we're on the second thing.

So as

we're going through this note in terms of the ownership,

in terms of not the ownership, but as we're going

through the note, then the next page, which is attached

to Deposition Exhibit No. 2, that is a Allonge to

Promissory Note.

one you said that was not valid?

Is this the one that's valid or the

A.

The one that is valid.

Q.

Okay.

And this is the one that you mentioned

10

you can tell the date, but you can't tell from here,

11

correct?

Is that what you're referring to?

12

MR. IARIA:

Just for the record, that was the

13

second one we were talking about the date.

14

for the second from LNV to Beal.

15

that one yet.

16

MR. BACH:

Exhibit 4 is

I don't think we're at

That's from the -- allison Martin

17

is the one we're talking about.

18

Allison Martin one.

This one goes with the

You are correct.

19

A.

Okay.

20

Q.

Too many documents.

I am trying to -- I

21

apologize.

22

make sure, lists the note date.

23

on it.

24

just going through what's on here, and it appears to be

So this allonge, to me, I am just trying to


It doesn't have a date

I am not saying allonge is supposed to.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

I am

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 87 of 253 PageID 2776

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

48
1

signed by someone by the name of Jason J. Vecchio, who

is from Residential Funding Company, LLC, is that true?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

And it looks like again to have two

stamps, one that was originally just an endorsement

stamp, and one which was put in the name of LNV

Corporation, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Now, do you know or have any knowledge of when

10

that stamp was placed on there, either one of those

11

stamps?

12

A.

13

It would have been at or around the time that

we had actually acquired the loan.

14

Q.

Okay.

15

A.

When the note came in and it was documented as

16

And what date was that?

being received, it was May 5, 2008.

17

Q.

Now I think you said earlier that there was

18

some -- I am just guessing -- that there was not just

19

this note that was purchased from Residential Funding,

20

but there were a whole group of them most likely,

21

correct?

22

You mentioned an asset purchase agreement?


MR. IARIA:

23

case.

24

BY MR. BACH:

Objection, relevance to this

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 88 of 253 PageID 2777

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

49
1

Q.

Yes?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So on May 5, 2008, you acquired this and other

notes and that's how you can say what the date is,

correct?

A.

The date that I am referring to is the date

that was documented that the original note was received

and cataloged into our system of record.

Q.

What sort of procedure is used when a loan is

10

purchased or a new note is received in terms of

11

protection?

12

the original notes go into a fire-safe safe.

13

give me an idea of what the procedure is?

14
15

MR. IARIA:
case.

Can you

Objection, relevance to this

We have the original with us.

16
17

Because obviously, as you stated earlier,

MR. BACH:

That's fine.

I want to know what

the procedure is.

18

A.

Yeah.

19

Q.

The chain of custody?

20

A.

The seller would have sent the original loan

21

documents to the buyer, in this case, or the purchaser,

22

which would have been LNV Corporation.

23

sent him, you know, Fed Ex or some type of mass shipping

24

and cataloged, recorded boxes, what inventory had --

They would have

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 89 of 253 PageID 2778

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

50
1

what loans were in there.

then the employees of the document control department

would go through and review all those files and document

when it was actually received for each one of the

different loans that was purchased.

would then develop the collateral files, scanned copies

of the original notes, put them in there, move the

original notes into the vault.

bar coded so that they can track it under the system of

As those would have come in,

From that, they

Of course everything is

10

record, document what documents came in as of the date

11

it was actually cataloged as being received, and then

12

they would have started, at the same time, working on

13

the assignments of mortgage and also the allonges for

14

each of the different loans that was purchased in that

15

portfolio.

16

Q.

Now -- and I am going to go back to the chart

17

that you have.

18

by

19

And this is done by -- and this is done

CLMG Corp., correct, or is this done by LNV?


A.

No.

In 2008, MGC was the custodian of the

20

original loan documents, and then it changed in 2012 to

21

CLMG as being the custodian of the original one

22

document.

23
24

Q.

So at that point it would have been MGC.


Is there documentation in the collateral

file -- we will go through the collateral file in the

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 90 of 253 PageID 2779

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

51
1

thing that shows the custody, who has the custody of the

note, like, for instance, when you send it out to -- for

the foreclosure, is there some sort of a chain of

custody that's kept?

A.

There is, yes.

It wouldn't be in this

collateral file for the original note.

the note jacket that's on site.

I think there is a copy with the original note that

shows when it was actually sent to the firm.

10

Q.

It would be in

It's in the vault.

But

Now, getting back to Maloney Deposition No. 2,

11

we have -- and I am just -- it looks like it says, "Pay

12

to the order of," then on an angle, it says, "LNV

13

Corporation."

14

the same stamp obviously, or a typed out, and it's kind

15

of at an angle, correct?

16

A.

It looks like that's a second stamp, not

I believe there is only one stamp.

I think

17

the, "Pay to the order of without recourse, Residential

18

Funding, LLC," and then the name of the post funding

19

manager.

20
21
22

Q.

That's all -- looks to me to be typed.


To be typed on like a word processor type

thing and printed out?


A.

The whole document was typed, and the only

23

things -- the LNV Corporation is a stamp and then you

24

have his original signature.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 91 of 253 PageID 2780

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

52
1

Q.

Can I see the original for one second?

I do

notice a difference between them and I am going to ask

you about it.

has a bar code, okay?

That's not -- I know it's not on the copy of Deposition

Exhibit 2.

7
8

What does that bar code mean?

MR. IARIA:

Just for the record, Deposition

Exhibit 2 is different than my copy is.

9
10

So here, what I am looking at, it also

MR. BACH:
Claim.

11

Which I took right off the Proof of

That's where I got it from.


MR. IARIA:

If I may offer some explanation to

12

that, that may be a redaction process by my office, it

13

includes the loan number, and that would be other

14

information that the law firm would typically redact,

15

but I don't know if -- and I am not going to kind of

16

testify -- but that may shed some light to it.

17
18
19
20
21

MR. BACH:

Okay.

I noticed that difference.

That's why I was asking.


Q.

Do you know, is that part of the normal

process that you have?


A.

That, I don't know.

So normally your

22

documents don't have a bar code on it like that,

23

correct?

24

MR. IARIA:

Objection.

You're looking at the

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 92 of 253 PageID 2781

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

53
1

original.

MR. BACH:

Right.

But we have had a

discussion -- you're not under oath -- Your attorney

said that that may be part of his law firm placing it on

there.

I am asking -MR. IARIA:

No.

I apologize.

I am not trying

to testify here.

redact the loan numbers, not to add the bar code.

My law firm's policy would be to

MR. BACH:

Yes.

But I all I trying training

10

to say is Deposition Exhibit No. 2 doesn't have anything

11

there.

12
13

MR. IARIA:

Correct.

That would be a PDF

system.

14

MR. BACH:

I am just trying to figure out

15

where it came from is what I am trying to say, if you

16

didn't redact it.

17
18
19

Q.

I am saying, is that bar code on original

documents normally?
A.

On the ones from Residential Funding Company,

20

because this is their allonge document, I believe that's

21

how they all are drawn up.

22

Q.

So what your understanding is is that is a

23

Residential Funding thing, not a Beal Company type

24

identification?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 93 of 253 PageID 2782

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

54
1

A.

Correct.

Q.

Okay.

That's what I am looking for.

Now I am

looking at the original.

the original which is a lot clearer than the other one.

But this appears to be an original signature, correct?

Okay.

No.

I am looking at

A.

Correct.

Q.

And it's much clearer than the other one, but

it's the same as Deposition Exhibit No. 2, correct, that

part is?

10

A.

Correct.

11

Q.

Now, would the LNV Corporation stamp have been

12

placed there by someone from your -- from Beal

13

Companies, or would it have been done by GMAC?

14
15
16

A.

That would have been us.

It would have been

Q.

Then you testified on Deposition Exhibit

us.

17

No. 3, the last page, the sixth page that's attached to

18

the Proof of Claim is -- you testified this was included

19

in error, attached to the Proof of Claim.

20

value, it is not in existence, correct?

It has no

21

A.

Correct.

22

Q.

There is no reliance, I assume, upon anybody

23
24

for any purpose in this sixth page, correct?


A.

Correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 94 of 253 PageID 2783

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

55
1

Q.

Then we get to the last -- the last allonge,

which is Deposition Exhibit No. 3, and then do you have

the original of that?

A.

Sure.

Q.

I don't want to lose it.

A.

I don't either.

Q.

In the maze of paper.

I am sure you will get

in big trouble if you do.

allonge from LNV Corporation from Allison Martin.

10
11
12
13

who is Allison Martin?


A.

So then we have the note


Now

Let's start there.

She is the vice president of document

control.
Q.

Okay.

It lists her as attorney-in-fact.

Why

14

wouldn't it say, "Vice President of Document Control"

15

instead of, "Attorney-in-fact?"

16
17

MR. IARIA:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.

18

THE WITNESS:

I believe it's because there is

19

a POA which authorizes her to sign as an

20

attorney-in-fact.

21

Q.

Is her job primarily to sign documents?

22

MR. IARIA:

23

THE WITNESS:

24

Objection, relevance.
It is a part of her job

description, yes.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 95 of 253 PageID 2784

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

56
1

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Approximately, to your knowledge, if you know,

how many -- does she sign -- how many of these does she

sign a day, a week, a year?

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Objection, relevance.
That, I don't know.

How long have you known Allison Martin?


MR. IARIA:

Objection.

I don't know if he

10

testified that he personally knows her.

11

BY MR. BACH:

12

Q.

13

Do you know Allison Martin?

Let's start

there.

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

That's a good point. I can deal with that

16

correction.

17

How long have you known her?

A.

Since I started with Beal back in December of

19

Q.

Do you know how long she has worked there?

20

A.

I think she came -- She was either there right

18

2000.

21

before me or right after.

22

quite some time.

23
24

Q.

So she has been there for

How long has she been vice president, do you

know?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 96 of 253 PageID 2785

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

57
1

A.

That, I don't know.

Q.

Had she always been a vice president?

if you don't know, you don't know.

figure it out.

I am just trying to

A.

Yeah.

Q.

You said she is also vice president.

That, I don't know.

MR. IARIA:

we going with this?

10

MR. BACH:

12
13
14

Is her

office close to yours, on the same floor?

11

I mean,

Objection, relevance.

Where are

Let him answer the question.

will move on from there.


A.

We are on the same floor, but opposite sides

of the building.
Q.

Does she actually prepare the documents

15

herself or does someone else do that for her to your

16

knowledge?

17
18

MR. IARIA:

testify as to someone else.

19
20

Objection.

MR. BACH:
knowledge."

If he doesn't know, he doesn't know.

MR. IARIA:

22

THE WITNESS:
BY MR. BACH:

24

Q.

Speculation.

That's why I said, "To your

21

23

You are having him

Objection, relevance.
I don't know.

Does she also work for MGC?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 97 of 253 PageID 2786

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

58
1

A.

She works for CLMG.

Q.

But if she worked for CLMG, but she prepares

-- to your knowledge -- that's all I am asking --

documents for the other Beal entities or only for CLMG?

A.

No.

She does it for all the Beal entities,

and there were some earlier documents that she had done

under -- for MGC post closing as well.

8
9
10

Q.

Let's get back to Deposition Exhibit No. 3.

And I think earlier you mentioned that you knew a date


that this happened.

What date was that?

11

A.

At or around May 3, 2013.

12

Q.

Okay.

13

May 3, 2013.

And if you know, why

was -- why was this allonge done on May 3, 2013?

14

A.

I don't know.

15

Q.

Was it part of some sort of an asset purchase

16
17

between LNV and Beal Bank?


A.

Oh, it was -- the loan transferred ownership

18

from LNV Corporation to Beal Bank, U.S.A.

19

prior to this date.

20

multiple loans that transferred from that one investor

21

to another, all the allonges and all the assignment of

22

mortgages were being done simultaneously as that

23

transfer had occurred.

24

this particular loan done May 3, 2013.

That happened

However, because there were

And this one was actually for

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 98 of 253 PageID 2787

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

59
1

Q.

So there was some sort -- I am just asking.

Was there an asset purchase agreement or was it done

informally?

A.

That, I don't know.

Q.

So at some time prior to that, the loan was

purchased by Beal Bank?

goes forward or is it just a transfer?

8
9

MR. IARIA:

Objection.

Can you specify a time

line on that question?

10

BY MR. BACH:

11

Q.

12

Is there actually money that

Let's go back.

I will come back to that

question in a second.

13

A.

Okay.

14

Q.

Do you know when this loan was actually

15

transferred?

16

2013.

17
18

A.

You said it happened before May 5th of

The transfer was supposed to be effective as

of December 2012.

19

Q.

December 1st?

20

A.

I don't recall the actual day.

21

Q.

Okay.

So just so I understand, what was

22

supposed to have happened was that sometime in December

23

2012, I am guessing the prior year, correct?

24

A.

December 2012, yeah.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 99 of 253 PageID 2788

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

60
1

Q.

You said '13.

I want to make sure we are all

clear.

ownership from LNV to Beal Bank.

telling me?

A.

Sometime in December 2012, the loan changed


Is that what you're

It was effective as of the December 2012 date,

the transfer from the LNV investor to the Beal Bank

U.S.A. investor.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Q.

Is there a series of documents which shows

that transfer, or is there any documents that confirm


that, anything like that?
A.

The Notice of Service or Notice of Ownership

Transfer that was dated January 20th or 29, 2013.


Q.

So that's the only document which shows --

14

There is no internal documents which show a transfer of

15

ownership or anything like that?

16

A.

Not that I am aware of.

17

Q.

It was decided one day that it would be

18

transferred.

19

would show it on the computer system on a certain date?

20

Would it be entered in the servicing notes?

But there is no internal documents that

21

A.

It wouldn't have been documented on the LPS

22

System.

It was an internal business decision to move

23

from LNV Corporation to Beal Paying U.S.A.

24

Q.

What you were referring to is -- I will call

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 100 of 253 PageID 2789

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

61
1

it Deposition Exhibit No. 5.

give you the original one. I'm sorry.

A.

You got it.

Okay.

I will

Okay.

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 5 was marked for

Identification as of this

date.)

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

You have the original.

10

know what happened to the allonge.

11

That's the original?

12
13

A.

Good.

I didn't

It's right there.

Before you ask me questions, this is only a

portion.

14

Q.

Do you have a full copy of it?

15

A.

You know what, I'm sorry.

16

Okay.

something else.

I am thinking of

This is the letter that was sent out.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

A.

Sorry.

19

Q.

If I only have half of it, it's happened

20

before.

21

tell me what Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 5 is?

22
23
24

A.

That's what I wanted --

I am sure it will happen again.

Can you please

It is the Notification of Assignment, Sale or

Transfer of the mortgage loan.


Q.

Okay.

On here it mentions December 31st of

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 101 of 253 PageID 2790

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

62
1

2012, true?

In the first paragraph?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Okay.

Now, could you tell me a little bit

about the preparation of this and how that's done?

A.

What do you mean?

Q.

Obviously what we talked about earlier is that

there was a transfer of ownership sometime in December

that references December 31st, okay?

to a group of people who prepare these documents?

Is this sent out

10

A.

I'm sorry.

11

Q.

I am looking for a little background on how --

Can you repeat the question?

12

what's the procedure when it's decided that you're going

13

to transfer a loan, such as this one, from LNV Bank

14

to -- Is there a procedure, someone who takes charge, to

15

make sure that these go out?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

A.

This one here would have been -- the

What would that be?

19

acquisitions group would have spearheaded the transfer.

20

The management would have been involved with making the

21

decision as to, you know, the letters, when they were

22

going to actually be sent out and the effective date of

23

the change.

24

Q.

Okay.

Now, the Proof of Claim is No. 6.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 102 of 253 PageID 2791

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

63
1

(WHEREUPON, Deposition

Exhibit No. 6 was marked

for Identification as of

this date.)

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

I am showing you what's been marked as Maloney

Deposition Exhibit No. 6, which is a copy of the Proof

of Claim.

real quickly.

10

If you want to take a look at that document

MR. IARIA:

My exhibit is missing -- the copy

11

I brought doesn't have all the attachments.

12

on going over them, I think it's mostly the mortgage and

13

note on the back.

14
15

MR. BACH:

Yes.

Okay.

If you plan

I just want to make

sure that you have seen it.

16

Q.

17

debtor.

18

work -- only a couple creditors here and there -- they

19

are usually not what I call commercial lenders, people

20

that normally service notes or anything like that.

21

all my questions may be things that are elementary and I

22

apologize for this.

23

someone files bankruptcy as to the Proof of Claim is

24

then sent out to a law firm in order to prepare that?

Now, again, as I told you, I represent a


Most of the time I have been doing bankruptcy

So

Is there a procedure that when

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 103 of 253 PageID 2792

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

64
1

Is there a procedure for that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

That is going to be DMI procedure, because

And what that procedure?

they are the ones that handle day-to-day with regards to

the filing of the POC claims.

Q.

I am guessing DMI is Dovenmuehle?

A.

Dovenmuehle.

Q.

You said they are a subservicer and they take

10

Sorry.

care of that?

11

A.

Correct.

12

Q.

Now, if I want to ask someone at Dovenmuehle a

13

question about this, is there a person who is in charge

14

over there that would be a good person to ask?

15
16

A.

It would be the manager of their bankruptcy

department.

17

Q.

Do you know who that is?

18

A.

I believe that's Scott, Burris, B-U-R-R-I-S.

19

Q.

Any other names that you can think of?

20

A.

Not off the top of my head, no.

21

Q.

So someone from Scott Burris' department would

22

then send this to Freedman Anselmo with the information

23

for the amounts that are owed, is that correct?

24

A.

Correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 104 of 253 PageID 2793

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

65
1

Q.

The amounts that would be -- would there be be

attached any information regarding the loan to your

knowledge?

4
5

MR. IARIA:
information.

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA:

Objection, calls for privileged

How is that privileged?


Well, the communication between

the client and what you're saying to the law firm.

MR. BACH:

I am asking what's it going to

10

include.

I am not asking for specifics, just in

11

general.

Does it include the amount?

12

A.

The amount of what?

13

Q.

The amount that's owed?

Where does that

14

information come from?

15

calculate the amount that's owed or is it done by

16

Dovenmuehle?

17

A.

It is provided by Dovenmuehle's counsel.

18

Q.

What sort of information would be provided?

19

MR. IARIA:

Does the law firm basically

Objection, calls for --

20

potentially calls for privileged information and work

21

product.

22

THE WITNESS:

The amount of the arrearages or

23

the amount of the total claim, the fees and costs that

24

have been assessed to the loan.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 105 of 253 PageID 2794

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

66
1

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Would the mortgage be there, the note?

A.

In this case the note was already with counsel

based on the foreclosure action that was filed in July

of 2000 -- or June, July 2011.

had a copy of the mortgage at that point in time as

well.

8
9

Q.

Counsel would also have

Now, would it also include a direction on

whose behalf the Proof of Claim would be filed in?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Okay.

So that instruction would not come from

12

the law firm, that would come from Dovenmuehle,

13

correct?

14

A.

15

Dovenmuehle.

16

Q.

That would -- Yes, it would come from

The information provided from Dovenmuehle to a

17

law firm is anticipation of a -- for preparation of a

18

document, such as the Proof of Claim, that will be filed

19

in the bankruptcy court, correct?

20

A.

Yes.

21

Q.

It's not for any other purpose?

22

A.

Say that again.

23
24

MR. IARIA:

Clarify.

BY MR. BACH:

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 106 of 253 PageID 2795

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

67
1

Q.

The reason why the information is transmitted

from Dovenmuehle to the law firm is to prepare the Proof

of Claim, not for any other purpose?

MR. IARIA:

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA: "Not for any other purpose."

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

9
10

Objection, calls for speculation.


What speculation is there?

I said, why else would they send information

that would be to put together a Proof of Claim than to


prepare the Proof of Claim?

11

MR. IARIA:

12

THE WITNESS:

13

BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

Just note the objection.


It wouldn't.

But there is no other reason to send

15

financial -- "This is how much is owed as of the date of

16

the bankruptcy," correct?

17

A.

I'm sorry.

18

Q.

There would be no other reason to send a

19
20

Say that one more time.

letter from Dovenmuehle to the law firm and saying,


"This is the amount that's owed.

This is the amount of

21

the arrears.

This is the number of payments that they

22

are behind.

These are the other costs and fees," than

23

to prepare the Proof of Claim?

24

A.

It would have been more than just a letter or

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 107 of 253 PageID 2796

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

68
1

other documents.

loan, what was sent across would have been anything that

has to do with what was owed, what was in arrears, what

was assessed to the loan and any other documents that

was needed by counsel in order to file a Proof of

Claim.

Q.

8
9

It would be -- With this particular

Who is David Allison?


MR. IARIA:

Objection.

Build a foundation on

that or even --

10

BY MR. BACH:

11

Q.

Do you know David Allison?

12

A.

I do not.

13

MR. IARIA:

14

the claim at all.

15

BY MR. BACH:

16

Q.

I don't know where you're getting

Now, the Proof of Claim on Page 3 of the Proof

17

of Claim, the original part, the original claim had been

18

filed on January -- was filed on January 2nd, but filed

19

on January -- it's signed, according to this, on January

20

3rd, and filed on January 2nd.

21

2nd, because if you look at the top of the page, it has

22

the file stamp.

23

in date.

24

Okay?

I can tell it's January

I am not asking you why the difference

You didn't prepare the document.

I get that.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 108 of 253 PageID 2797

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

69
1

A.

Okay.

Q.

What I am asking -- and if you go back to Page

1, you can see that the claimant is LNV Corporation,

correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And according to the letter that we discussed,

which was Deposition Exhibit 5, the loan was transferred

effective December 31st.

A.

How is that possible?

Because DMI, nor was counsel aware, that the

10

entity was being changed at that time.

11

went out to notify everybody was January 20, 2013.

12

counsel and DMI filed the claim on behalf of LNV

13

Corporation at that point in time because that was

14

who -- they were advising, the investor was, at that

15

point in time.

16

filed the claim, it had been in their office since June

17

2011, they filed the claim on behalf of LNV Corporation

18

because that's who they knew to be in ownership at the

19

time.

20

Q.

21

MR. IARIA:
distinction.

23

fine.

24

BY MR. BACH:

So

Also, the original note, when counsel

Go ahead.

22

The letter that

I'm sorry.
I just wanted to make one

Well, I am going to withdraw any -- That's

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 109 of 253 PageID 2798

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

70
1

Q.

But you would agree, based upon what you have

told me already, that on the date the proof of claim was

filed, LNV did not own the loan?

A.

Ownership was transferred to Beal Bank U.S.A.

Q.

Okay.

Now, if -- now the proof of claim has

several different parts and was filed.

Page 4 of 4, is just the Proof of Claim form itself.

Then there is a mortgage attached.

talk more about the mortgage.

The first one,

And we are going to

I promise we will get to

10

it, okay?

11

about -- then we have the note that we took that we have

12

been talking about for a long time, which is also

13

Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 2, correct?

And then we get a couple more questions

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

Okay.

Now, my question to you is -- and we

16

are going to need the original -- Can I see the original

17

note again real quick?

18

take care of my question.

Can I see it real quick?

It may

19

And then at the end, we have -- and after

20

the note, we have some detail about amounts that are due

21

the date of the filing of the Petition, correct,

22

Mortgage Proof of Claim attachment?

23

A.

Correct.

24

Q.

Which is two pages long, correct?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 110 of 253 PageID 2799

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

71
1

A.

Correct.

Q.

The information that we were discussing

earlier that would have been provided by Dovenmuehle, is

this information correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, as part of the Proof of Claim process,

and again, it maybe my being -- not knowing the process

at all -- once the Proof of Claim is prepared, does the

law firm just file it or does it get reviewed by someone

10
11
12
13
14

at Dovenmuehle or the people that own the loan?


A.

It would have been reviewed prior to being

submitted for -- to the court.


Q.

So is that part of the normal process that

that would have happened?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

If a Proof of Claim was filed without being

17

reviewed, would you see that as a problem?

18
19

MR. IARIA:

Can you specify?

Reviewed by

anyone or --

20

MR. BACH:

Reviewed by someone at

21

Dovenmuehle.

22

or someone related to -- that was the owner of the loan?

I am talking about at Dovenmuehle or MGC

23

A.

Say the again one more time.

24

Q.

I will restate it.

I am just trying to --

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 111 of 253 PageID 2800

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

72
1

let's just go back for a second.

does it take for a Proof of Claim to be reviewed once

it's prepared?

Normally how many days

A.

That, I don't know.

Q.

That was part -- I was trying to think of an

easier way of asking the question.

it could have been -- my question is, if it was reviewed

-- and let's just say it was January 3rd, right after

the first of the year, okay -- I think you said sometime

So if it was -- So

10

in December that there hadn't been a decision made to

11

transfer the loan, although it was effective December

12

31st.

13

at Dovenmuehle have picked up the fact that the loan

14

was -- that it had the wrong claimant on it at some

15

point before it was reviewed?

Fine.

16
17

Would that -- How long -- Wouldn't someone

MR. IARIA:

Objection, you're making a legal

conclusion in your statement or in your question.

18

THE WITNESS:

DMI would have only known about

19

the change when we actually informed them of the

20

change.

21

was a transfer of claim that was filed from LNV to Beal

22

Bank U.S.A.

23

BY MR. BACH:

24

Q.

When we did notify them of the change, there

Okay.

Well, that's a different issue.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

But at

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 112 of 253 PageID 2801

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

73
1

the time you're saying that prior to December 31st, no

one told Dovenmuehle that the loan had been

transferred?

question is.

A.

Dovenmuehle was not aware at that time.

Q.

That was the answer to my question.

That's really what the answer to the

We can

talk about legal semantics another time.

A.

No.

Q.

That was the answer to the question I was

10

looking for.

11

Now, there are two assignments, correct?

12
13

That's fine.

A.

Correct, one from MERS to LNV Corporation and

then from LNV Corporation to Beal Bank U.S.A.

14

MR. IARIA:

Paul, if you can distribute the

15

copies, I don't have extras.

16

of Mortgage was a certified copy, and one was an

17

original that was brought.

18
19

MR. BACH:

One copy of the Assignment

The last page is the certification,

so you can tell which one is which.

20

Q.

21

the problem.

22

now.

23

original mortgage.

24

certified one that we talked about.

This which this one goes with this is actually


That's exactly what it is. I've got it

I will distribute -- Let me just -- so this is the


I have this here, okay?

The

I think we talked

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 113 of 253 PageID 2802

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

74
1

about the fact that we're going to make this a

deposition exhibit, correct?

3
4

MR. IARIA:
fine.

If you would like to, that's

That would be 7, correct?

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 7 was marked for

Identification as of this

date.)

9
10

MR. IARIA:

After this line of questioning

with regards to Exhibit 7, can we take a break?

11

MR. BACH:

I was going to try and get through

12

the mortgage and take a break.

13

MR. IARIA:

14

MR. BACH:

Perfect.

All right.

I was going to talk about the

15

mortgage and then we will talk about the accounting and

16

other issues after lunch.

That was my plan.

17

A.

Okay.

18

Q.

So this assignment is from -- so this would

19

be 8.

This would be 9.

20

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exs.

21

Nos. 8-9 were marked for

22

Identification as of this

23

date.)

24

BY MR. BACH:

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 114 of 253 PageID 2803

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

75
1

Q.

Okay.

For the record, we have a certified

copy of a mortgage, which is Maloney Deposition Exhibit

No. 7.

Electronic Registration System, to LNV Corporation,

which was recorded 9-3 of 2008, which is Maloney

Deposition Exhibit No. 8, and I will give you a copy of

that so you have that.

Assignment of Mortgage, which is Maloney Deposition

Exhibit No. 9, which is from LNV Corporation to Beal

There is an Assignment from MERS, Mortgage

And then there is another

10

Bank U.S.A., and it was recorded on March 13th of 2013.

11

And, Counsel, you have copies of them.

12

MR. IARIA:

Correct.

Just for the record, I

13

am going to object to the entire line of questioning as

14

to the Assignment of Mortgage.

15

specifically endorsed note under Illinois law.

16

with that said, that is my objection for the record.

17

BY MR. BACH:

18

Q.

19

It has no bearing on the


You know

Now, you were not able to bring with you today

a copy of the original mortgage.

Why is that?

20

A.

I did bring a copy of the original mortgage.

21

Q.

Okay.

22

itself?

23

A.

That's correct.

24

Q.

Okay.

You don't have the original mortgage

That was really my question.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

You don't

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 115 of 253 PageID 2804

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

76
1

have it.

mortgage with you?

Why were you not able to bring that original

A.

We never received it.

Q.

So you never received it from GMAC?

A.

We received -- not the original mortgage, no.

Q.

Is that typical?

A.

No, but it does happen.

Q.

There is no notes anywhere in your system

9
10
11

which indicate receiving the original mortgage?

Is that

how you're able to say that?


A.

That would be in the Master Track system.

12

That's where we document the receipt of the original

13

loan documents.

14

Q.

That's a system that CLMG has?

15

A.

Correct.

16

Q.

Not MGC, correct, at that time?

17

A.

At that time MGC was custodian of the original

18

records, then shifted over to CMG.

19

just being managed by CLMG.

It's the same system

20

Q.

What did you say it was called?

21

A.

Master track.

22

Q.

And then the assignment, which I have been

23

provided, and you just -- and all that was done was that

24

someone went to the Recorder of Deeds Office of Kane

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 116 of 253 PageID 2805

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

77
1

County, Illinois and asked them to certify a copy.

is the copy as they have it, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Okay.

This

And the same thing can be said of

Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 8, correct?

This is the

one from MERS to LNV Corporation, correct?

That's

Maloney Deposition Exhibit 8?

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

A.

The original assignment I have brought with me

today.
Q.

And you also have the assignment from --

that's Maloney Deposition No. 9 as well, correct?


A.

The one from LNV to Beal Paying U.S.A.,

correct.
Q.

Now, let's talk about Maloney Deposition

15

Exhibit No. 8, which is the one assignment that went

16

from MERS to LNV Corporation.

17

that the person who assigns the mortgage is different

18

from the person who endorses the note?

19

MR. IARIA:

and objection to the relevancy.

21

BY MR. BACH:

22

Q.

24

Now, is it typical

Objection, calls for speculation

20

23

Okay.

If you know, you know.

If you don't, you

don't.
A.

I don't know.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 117 of 253 PageID 2806

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

78
1

Q.

I just note that Michael Mead signed this one,

and a different person signed the other one.

wondering if you know why.

A.

I do not know.

Q.

Okay.

I am

Now let's go to the last one, which I

think is Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 9, which you

will know probably more because this one was also signed

by Allison Martin, correct?

A.

Correct.

10

Q.

Okay.

Is there a system in place -- is there

11

a reason why the mortgages would have been assigned

12

earlier than the note was endorsed?

13

A.

That would have been at or around the same

14

time.

15

5-3-2003.

16

loans, when they get to doing the assignments and the

17

allonges, if they are doing them simultaneously, that

18

would be a question for the Document Control Department

19

with regards to their procedures as to the assignments

20

and the allonges.

21

I mean, the allonge was documented in there as of

Q.

Depends on when they are working on the

So you have no explanation why the mortgage

22

was assigned almost two months before the note was

23

endorsed?

24

MR. IARIA:

Objection to mischaracterizing the

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 118 of 253 PageID 2807

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

79
1

testimony.

referring to Exhibit 4 for the date, but I don't know if

it's been testified that that's the specific date that

it was endorsed.

I don't know -- based on -- I assume you're

MR. BACH:

He testified earlier that May 3,

2013, which may have been based upon Deposition Exhibit

No. 4, was the date that the note was endorsed.

A.

I said at or around that date.

Q.

Around that time.

10

A.

Around that time.

11

Q.

I note that the mortgage -- Assignment of

12

Mortgage was recorded almost two months earlier on 3-13

13

of 2013 and is dated on there of March 5, 2013.

14

am wondering why there would be a difference of almost

15

two months?

16

A.

17
18

I don't know.
MR. BACH:

mortgage.

And I

I don't know.

I think that's all we have on the

I promised we would take a break now.

19

(Recess taken.)

20

BY MR. BACH:

21

Q.

We are not going to mark this as an exhibit,

22

but I have been handed the original collateral file from

23

the lender, correct?

24

A.

Correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 119 of 253 PageID 2808

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

80
1

Q.

That's what this is?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And it's in a red folder with -- I am guessing

it's a loan number on the side, 628243, correct?

A.

That's the bar code loan number for when they

pull it up in the system.

file.

8
9

Q.

Okay.

of this file.

That's how they look at the

Now, there is a left and a right side


The right side appears to have copies of

10

all the assignments and a copy of the note and a copy of

11

the mortgage, not the original one, but it has those

12

things there.

13

something called Home Connect Lenders Services, LLC.

14

looks like a bill for like $752.50.

15

I am just wondering what it is.

16

I suspect it's from the original loan maybe?

17
18
19
20

A.

On the left side, it has a statement from

I don't know.

It

What is that for?

It's dated in 2007, so

It's something that GMAC was

handling.
Q.

So you have no idea on that side of the folder

what those three documents are, correct?

21

A.

I don't.

22

Q.

It didn't look like it had anything to do with

23

anything.

24

they are there.

That's why I was trying to figure out why


And the other thing is, it says on

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 120 of 253 PageID 2809

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

81
1

there, it says, "This loan may be pledged to the FRB San

Francisco, LNV."

3
4

A.

What does that mean?

We have particular loans that are in our

portfolio that are pledged to the Federal --

Q.

Reserve Bank?

A.

Reserve Bank, yeah.

Q.

Why would that be?

A.

Because we draw a lot of our funding from the

9
10

Federal Home Loan Bank when we go out and acquire


loans.

11
12

Q.

It says, "May be pledged."

Why doesn't it

say, "Would be pledged?"

13

MR. IARIA:

14

MR. BACH:

Objection.
I am just trying to figure out what

15

it is.

16

March 17th of 2010 it looks like.

17

date would be?

18

A.

It shows a receive date of -- an enter date of

No.

Any idea what that

You know, correction.

Nautilus would

19

have scanned the following with document imaging.

20

the documents that are in there, some of them come out

21

of the origination file or the original collateral

22

file.

23
24

Q.

So

Then this is the file which is kept in the

vault, right?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 121 of 253 PageID 2810

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

82
1

A.

No.

This is the file that's kept in one of

the file rooms.

actual note jacket which would have housed the original

note for this.

5
6

Q.

The one that's kept in the vault is the

So the note is kept separately from the

collateral file?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Now here's some documents which I am going to

hold the original for me to look at because it has the

10

-- I am going to give you a copy for the time being.

11

We're going to look at that, but what this -- and it has

12

the POC Breakdown Summary.

13

documents, it looks like, that you brought with you

14

today that we had not previously seen, correct?

It has a whole bunch of

15

A.

That's correct.

16

Q.

So why don't we just call this Group, and call

17

it -- it will be No. 10.

18

MR. IARIA:

10, yes.

19

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

20

No. 10 was marked for

21

Identification as of this

22

date.)

23

BY MR. BACH:

24

Q.

I think we're done with documents.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

That's the

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 122 of 253 PageID 2811

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

83
1

stuff you brought with you, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you prepare what's being called Maloney

Deposition Exhibit No. 10?

A.

No.

Q.

Which is one of the two people you mentioned

Chris Whiteley.

that helped you prepare?

A.

Correct. There should be a dark green.

Q.

I don't see a dark green.

10

trying to match it up.

11

A.

I'm sorry.

12

Q.

You're fine.

13

That's why I was

I am just trying to understand

it.

14

MR. IARIA:

15

charges.

16

BY MR. BACH:

17

Q.

I'm sorry.

That's the late

That's not going to have an invoice attached.

So if I start with pink, I am going to start

18

right here for filing fees and court costs.

19

think I've got idea.

20

been labeled as Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 10

21

today.

22

colored and has a color associated with copies of -- it

23

looks like internal invoices -- that are labeled LPS

24

Desktop Invoice Management for each one of the sections

Okay.

Okay.

I have been handed what has

And what it appears to be is -- the original is

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 123 of 253 PageID 2812

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

84
1

of the Proof of Claim.

2
3

A.

Q.

The last two pages of the Proof of Claim, the

last two?

6
7

Each one of the sections of the Proof of Claim

as it relates to fees and costs on Page --

4
5

Does that sound about right?

A.

Not the last two.

It's only the first page.

Actually you're right, the last two.

Q.

Because of the way they filed it?

A.

Right.

10

Q.

Let me ask you another question.

We talked

11

about this a little earlier.

12

bit earlier when we're talking about, let's just say an

13

amount for the foreclosure process, $410 at the bottom

14

of the first page.

15

is?

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

A.

We talked about a little

Then we go to the yellow I think it

I think the darker of the yellow, so it should

be advertised cost.
Q.

Advertisement costs, which is foreclosure

process server, but that's fine.


A.

So it goes --

I think you're grabbing the wrong tab. Flip to

that page right there.


Q.

If you can just explain to me what this is,

maybe that's the best way of doing it.


A.

This is the breakdown of the fees and costs

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 124 of 253 PageID 2813

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

85
1

that have been assessed of this loan and the

corresponding invoices for each one of the different

charges that have been assessed.

here corresponds with the tabs that are also -- that

match the same color and it gives you that actual fee,

when it was billed, and when it was, you know, to the

loan, and what it was billed for.

8
9

Q.

The color coding on

Now as I page through here, it looks like the

documents that are attached to the Summary Document,

10

that are attached, looks like LPS Desktop Invoice

11

Management Invoice Detail, okay?

12

invoice.

13

A.

That is not the actual

Are there actual invoices as well?


There are, but some of those wouldn't be

14

included in here.

15

those in time, but there are actual invoices in there,

16

if you flip to like the safeguard properties, which

17

actually shoes the invoice and what was actually -- you

18

know, what they actually charge for.

19

Q.

Okay.

I wasn't able to bring those and get

So let's just go with the safeguard.

20

That's going to have some questions for me to begin

21

with.

22

A.

Okay.

23

Q.

Which is a page -- for the Safeguard one, just

24

to help you, starts with, this says "LPS Loan Results"

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 125 of 253 PageID 2814

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

86
1
2
3
4

it looks like.
A.

Yes.

Did you find it?


I think it's the same one.

I am just

looking, 6-4-2013?
Q.

Now we have this.

And it looks like there is

a whole -- that's probably the most documents of

anything in this document.

with different invoices.

in date all the way up to 2011 it looks like, near the

back, and most of these invoices appear to be for like

10

$10 it appears.

It goes on for quite a while


And it appears that this range

Is that the case?

11

A.

It's broken out $9 to $10.

12

Q.

Can you describe what this is?

13

A.

This is a property inspection.

They go out to

14

make sure that the property hasn't been vacated.

15

it's just an on-site visual to make sure that there is

16

no visible damage and the property hasn't been vacated.

So

17

Q.

Exactly.

18

A.

It's done on a monthly basis.

19

Q.

So why do you do that?

20

A.

To protect our interest in the security for

21
22

the loan.
Q.

Now, it appears -- we will get to that in a

23

second upon the spread sheet that you gave me.

24

inspections continue.

Those

Does that typically continue?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 126 of 253 PageID 2815

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

87
1

Does that -- do you do that for every single property

even if it's in default or it's not in default?

A.

Only on properties in default.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Because we are not receiving payments and we

Why would that distinction be made?

want to make sure that the property hasn't been vacated

or damaged in any way or harmed, our security interest

is, you know, being harmed in any way.

Q.

For $9 or $10, what does the person do?

10

A.

They go out, take pictures, report back any

11

visible damage, if there is any damage they can see from

12

the curb, from the street, and to check to see if the

13

property has been vacated.

14

Q.

Okay.

It appears that these are invoices, and

15

it does not appear whether there is an actual report.

16

Is the report only like this or does it actually have

17

some writing on it?

18

A.

Which one are you looking at?

19

Q.

I am speaking on a random.

20
21
22
23
24

the bottom.
A.

I just picked one out at random.

Each one is different.


MR. IARIA:

on relevance.

It says Page 53 at

I mean, you know --

Paul, I make a general objection

Could we bring it back to this case?

MR. BACH:

I am talking about this case.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 127 of 253 PageID 2816

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

88
1

MR. IARIA:

the bankruptcy case.

3
4
5

MR. BACH:
bankruptcy case.
A.

Yeah.

I know, but issues pertaining to

This is an issue related to the

They are charging them money.


They went out, they took pictures of

the property and they reported back whether it was

vacant or secured.

8
9

Q.

Where do they report that it's vacant or

secured?

10

MR. IARIA:

Paul, I am going to object for the

11

record.

12

couldn't hear what you said.

13

BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

Your client is talking on the record again.

Where does it say that -- the information that

15

you just said, it says -- I can see the invoice.

16

says, "Verify if vacant."

17

vacant or anything like that?

It

Where does it say it wasn't

18

A.

That's not actually stated on the invoice.

19

Q.

So right here, is there another document,

20
21

another report that we're missing?


A.

Not a report.

It would be electronically

22

transferred onto the system and it would be documented

23

whether or not it was vacant or occupied.

24

Q.

So it's just an e-mail is what it is?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 128 of 253 PageID 2817

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

89
1
2
3

A.

No.

It's some type of data coding that's

transported on to DMIs system from Safeguard.


Q.

Because it just would seem to me if they are

transmitting pictures, that information should be along

with it.

A.

That's what it seems to me.


Again, this is a vendor used by DMI and how

that information is reported is between DMI and

Safeguard.

Q.

Okay.

10

A.

Mm-hmm.

11

Q.

This invoice appears to be for 12-18-2011.

12
13

Page 54 of that.

Did you find it?

looks like it's billed $40,445.


A.

It's not -- this one for this particular

14

property for this order is $10.

15

inspections that were recorded across the portfolio.

16
17

Q.

That is for mass

This is the part of the total bill for

everybody?

18

A.

Correct.

19

Q.

I see they all have numbers that are very

20

high, lots of money.

21

next one is $47,000?

22

It

A.

Some are $38,000, some are -- the

That's for the portfolio in its entirety.

23

What was billed on this loan was actually the $10.

24

shows up at the top of the section.

Not $40,000.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

It

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 129 of 253 PageID 2818

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

90
1
2

Q.

Okay.

And then let's call this Maloney

Deposition Exhibit No. 11.

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 11 was marked for

Identification as of this

date.)

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

MR. IARIA:

10
11

MR. BACH:

The one starting 1-31-2007.


There is two.
Those two look the same.
I thought they were the same.

apologize.

12

MR. IARIA:

They continue.

13

BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

They are different documents though.

15

A.

It's a continuation.

16

MR. IARIA:

The transaction date, Paul, it

17

starts 1-31-2007 on one, and it starts on 10-17-11 on

18

the other.

19

BY MR. BACH:

20

Q.

Is this from GMAC is what this one is?

21

A.

When it was originated.

22

Q.

1-31-07?

23

A.

Yeah.

24

So this is from origination on until

the claim was filed and then --

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 130 of 253 PageID 2819

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

91
1
2

MR. IARIA:

For the purposes of

identification, if you want to start with '07.

MR. BACH:

I think you're absolutely right.

Thank you for pointing that out.

were two different documents.

MR. IARIA:

11 and

I didn't realize they

12.

(WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

No. 12 was marked for

Identification as of this

10

date.)

11

BY MR. BACH:

12

Q.

Yeah.

Let's do this one first.

Okay we have

13

Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 11 and 12.

11, it looks

14

like, starts 1-31-07, and 12 looks like it starts 10-17

15

of'11, correct?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

Could you explain to me what these documents

18
19

are, how they are generated?


A.

Sure.

This was put together by me and my

20

staff, and this is just a reconciliation of the payment

21

histories from when the loan was originated until now.

22

Q.

And how was this generated?

23

A.

This was actually generated from the payment

24

history screens, both GMAC and MGC.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 131 of 253 PageID 2820

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

92
1
2

Q.

Did someone go through and actually do this

spread sheet?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Or can the LPS Desktop generate it

5
6
7
8
9
10

automatically?
A.

No.

This was done by my individual on my

staff.
Q.

It's just a standard spread sheet that you use

to figure out defaults I am guessing, correct?


A.

Just to put it in more easily readable format

11

than trying to go through all the histories and each one

12

are different.

13

reconciliation of that.

14

Q.

So this is just -- This is a

We will get to that when we -- in a second.

15

We will talk about the one that I was given previously.

16

This was meant to be a more clear definition of what was

17

provided in that because as I looked at loan histories

18

that are on those things, they are very difficult to

19

read, correct?

20

A.

Correct.

21

Q.

And you were just trying to make it -- it

22

basically replaces that, correct?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Supplements it?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 132 of 253 PageID 2821

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

93
1

A.

Supplemental, yes.

Q.

It's a better word for it.

A.

Yes.

Q.

But the information on that document and these

two documents is exactly the same?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Chris Whiteley.

10

Q.

If you go through the category -- I know some

Which one of your assistants prepared

this?

11

of these answers, but let me make sure -- when we look

12

through the top, and I am looking down, there is nothing

13

in the column that's Debtors and Trustees Reference

14

Number.

Does that have a purpose?

15

column.

I am going through columns.

16

A.

Yeah.

It's the first

There is nothing in there.

We didn't

17

put anything in there.

18

for just showing how the payments were and everything

19

was assessed to this account during this time period.

20

Q.

We didn't feel it was relevant

So that would -- would that normally be used

21

for determining which goes to the pre-petition and which

22

goes to the post petition when you're dealing with a

23

Chapter 13?

24

A.

No.

Actually it's kind of broken out over

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 133 of 253 PageID 2822

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

94
1
2
3
4
5

here as far as pre-petition funds and post petition.


Q.
used for.
A.

I am trying to understand what it's normally


What does Transaction Date mean?
That would have been when the actual

transaction occurred on the system.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Or when the -- if you notice in there, too, we

have in there referencing to the bankruptcies, you know,

the Chapter 13, when it was filed.

The date of 7-17-07,

10

and then we had the Motion of Relief, Order of Granting

11

Relief, Order Effective Date, and when it was actually

12

dismissed.

13
14

Q.

Contractual, I assume, means the date it was

applied to on a contractual basis?

15

A.

Correct.

16

Q.

Now, when you have a Chapter 13, does it

17
18
19

divide between post petition and pre-petition?


A.

It does.

In this instance though, when the

borrower filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they were --

20

Q.

It was post petition?

21

A.

Yeah, it was post petition.

22

Q.

But normally does it differentiate between

23

what is post petition, current funds, and what is

24

trustee funds typically?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 134 of 253 PageID 2823

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

95
1

A.

Yes, it would.

Q.

Does it keep a running total of what the

arrears would be?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, it says, "Post Petition paid through

date."

for?

8
9
10

A.

It would show post petition, when it was paid

through, if there were payments being applied with


regards to the post petition.

11
12

I assume that -- well, what is that column used

Q.

And the Installment Payment is just the amount

that's technically due, correct?

13

A.

The principal interest, taxes and insurance,

15

Q.

It's the amount you're looking for

16

essentially?

17

A.

Correct.

18

Q.

And then the Total Funds would be to keep

14

yes.

19

track if something is short so some portion has to go

20

into a suspense account?

21

A.

Or more.

22

Q.

Or more.

23
24

And the other part would into the

suspense account?
A.

Or the whole amount may go into suspense or a

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 135 of 253 PageID 2824

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

96
1

holding because a suspense account is a holding

account.

the payments if it was enough to make a full monthly

payment.

Q.

Then it would be redirected to be applied to

Just so I understand, I can look at a lot of

this stuff later on and figure it out.

lose you.

an example, and sometimes there was $3,530.35, because

that was the amount of the payment.

I don't want to

So if you have on this instance, just to make

The payment would

10

be shown immediately as being current because it's

11

exactly the correct amount.

12

that, that's when the problem starts, correct?

If it's above or below

13

A.

What do you mean by, "problem starts?"

14

Q.

Meaning how to account for it.

15

A.

Well, if you would, and bear with me, we could

16

go to a specific example regarding this loan.

17

look down on Line 36 -- 35, Funds to suspense, 12-21-08,

18

$7368.92, which would have been enough to cover two

19

payments, which the payment at the time was $3684.46.

20

So when that was received, it went into suspense on

21

12-21-08.

22

August 2008 payments.

If you

12-23-08, it got applied to the September and

23

Q.

Thank you.

24

A.

That's the only time there was any funds in

That does help.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 136 of 253 PageID 2825

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

97
1

suspense with regards to this loan.

Q.

We kind of touched on this earlier.

On that

particular transaction, the money comes in.

deposited -- well, that would be because it was still

GMAC.

MGC.

then make payments out when it applies it?

Does it get

Let's just take the example that it came into


Would MGC deposit it into its own account then and

A.

Makes payments to what?

Q.

To the investor, to the company that actually

10

owns the loan.

11

MR. IARIA:

12

THE WITNESS:

Objection, relevance.
The funds would come in, they

13

would be documented as far as the transaction was when

14

they were received, they would be documented when they

15

were applied, and then I think they would remit it the

16

investor on a monthly basis.

17

MR. IARIA: Counsel, just for the record, I

18

have been just handed these documents that may explain a

19

lot of the questions you may even have to ask.

20

know if you want to go through your remaining material

21

and then go through the questions you have for the sake

22

of time and then potentially issue a second set of

23

interrogatories based on these, or something else, so

24

we're not at -- I mean, so you're not going through them

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

I don't

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 137 of 253 PageID 2826

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

98
1

while we're waiting for you.

MR. BACH:

MR. IARIA:

I have never seen it before, so -I understand that.

But I think

they probably do explain many of the -- many of the

questions that you did plan on asking.

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Now, I see here as part of the GMAC, so you

may not know, but it looks like the principal balance

doesn't go down.

10

A.

Is there a reason for that?

This is an adjustable rate note, and the first

11

so many years, based on the terms of the note, would go

12

directly to interest.

13

after the interest only period, then it would start

14

being applied to principal balance.

And I think when it becomes --

15

Q.

Interest first loan?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

It didn't look right.

18

that.

19

is other charges?

20
21
22
23
24

That's why I looked at

When it says, "Late fees and other charges," what

A.

The other charges would be reflective on

here.
MR. IARIA:

For the record, he is pointing to

Group Exhibit 10.


MR. BACH:

This is Exhibit No. 12.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Here's

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 138 of 253 PageID 2827

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

99
1

the -- do you have it?

another copy if you want it.

kill trees, huh?

Response to Discovery?

I have

You don't want to help me

Have you ever seen this before?

A.

I have.

Q.

Did you help in its preparation?

A.

I did not.

Q.

Now, I just want to go through with you, if

you go back near the end of the legal part of it when

10

they respond, and there should be a page after the Proof

11

of Service by Mail where it talks about descriptions,

12

payee transactions.

13

A.

Okay.

14

Q.

Do you know what this document is?

15

A.

This would be the coding for the payee

16

transactions I think for -- this would be for June now

17

because it's dated Training Manual 2-14-2005.

18

Q.

This is not part of the system that you use?

19

Is that what it is or is there another one for you?

20

Because it looks like then we have the pay history that

21

you were referring to that says Dovenmuehle Mortgage on

22

the top of it as part of it.

23
24

A.

Yeah.

The key for Dovenmuehle Mortgage

payment history that's here, if you turn to Page -- they

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 139 of 253 PageID 2828

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

100
1

are not numbered -- it says Page at the top, A2155.

Q.

A2?

A.

Yeah, A2155.

It would have been dated

12-30-2011.

I think you went too far.

Right here.

There is the codes and what the codes

actually represent.

penalty, (K) Interest due, paid.

There you go.

So if you see those, like a FHA

Q.

So you're saying the first page is for GMAC?

A.

I think these Description Payee Transaction

10

Codes are for --

11

Q.

Are for GMAC?

12

A.

Are for GMAC Payment History.

13

For the

Dovenmuehle, it's actually on --

14

Q.

The bottom is what you're saying.

15

A.

The bottom of the pages.

16

Q.

These all look to say Dovenmuehle at the top.

17
18

That's why I am a little confused, I guess.


A.

Dovenmuehle is the subservicer for MGC.

So

19

these would have been the payment histories from 2010 to

20

current.

21
22

Q.

So I don't have here the ones that GMAC

prepared, correct?

23

A.

It's not attached.

24

Q.

Payment codes don't match up to what's here is

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 140 of 253 PageID 2829

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

101
1

what my question really is, correct?

are kind of irrelevant?

The payment codes

A.

Yes, irrelevant for this history, correct.

Q.

Which is why I couldn't use it to read that

when I went through it the first time, right?

A.

Right.

Q.

That makes sense.

If we go beyond that, we

have the note, right?

A.

Correct.

10

Q.

With the additional allonges which you said is

11

not valid, correct?

12

A.

The one that had LNV, Inc.?

13

Q.

Yes.

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

It has an Assignment of Mortgage, correct?

16

A.

It has the Assignment of Mortgage from LNV

17

Corporation.

18

Q.

Then we have some Desktop LPS Invoice

19

Management, that was a series of them, which looks like

20

it's some of the ones we have here, but not all the ones

21

that were attached to Deposition Exhibit No. 10.

22

that be correct?

23

A.

I would agree to that.

24

Q.

Then below that, we have the mortgage,

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Would

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 141 of 253 PageID 2830

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

102
1

correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Do you need a copy of that?

Those are all the

documents that were attached to the Answers, Request for

Production.

We basically described what they were?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Basically the loan, the note, the pay history

and these couple -- and all the invoice ones that you

produced today invoice details, correct?

10

MR. IARIA:

11

that?

12

BY MR. BACH:

13

Q.

I'm sorry, can you reclarify

I lost you.

Attached to the Answers to the Request For

14

Production is the loan -- is the note, the mortgage, the

15

assignments, the allonges that we discussed already,

16

okay?

17

the payment codes that don't apply to what is described

18

which you have now supplemented with Deposition Exhibit

19

No. 12 and 12.

20

invoice details, but not all.

21

here, correct?

22

Then also is the pay history that we discussed,

A.

And then besides that are some of the


That's what's attached to

What I see attached to here is the payment

23

history where the loan was at DMI, a copy of the note

24

with the allonges, Assignment of -- one Assignment of

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 142 of 253 PageID 2831

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

103
1

Mortgage.

Beal Bank U.S.A., some of the invoices, not necessarily

would be all of them that was presented in Exhibit 10,

and a copy of the mortgage.

5
6

Q.

The only one that's on there is from LNV to

I think we said a lot of the same things, but

maybe said it a different way.

A.

There is a couple things left out.

Q.

But that's the basic idea of what I was trying

to get across.

Okay.

So now, if you would come back

10

with me and let us go through some of my questions, if

11

we go to the Answers to the Request for Document

12

Request, which is about Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, it looks

13

like 6, okay?

14

now given me that spread sheet, so that's what you're

15

sufficing for that, correct?

16

burdensome.

Now, No. 3 was objected to, but you have

No. 3?

It was unduly

Now you have produced that, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

I am going through charges and debits.

Exact

19

things I was looking for.

20

XLS Form Spread Sheet.

21

and 12 are, deposition exhibits.

22

which is right there, which I asked for a spread sheet.

That's fine.

No. 4 has an

That's kind of what Exhibit 11


If you go to No. 4,

23

A.

That's what that is, yes.

24

Q.

I just want to make sure, you say "Collection

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 143 of 253 PageID 2832

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

104
1

notes are available as part of the LPS."

notes, can those be printed out easily?

Collection

A.

Yes.

Q.

Is there a reason why you didn't bring those

5
6
7
8
9

with you today?


A.

I wasn't aware that you didn't have them

already.
Q.

I don't.

I would like them.

But they aren't

hard to print out at all, correct?

10

A.

No.

11

Q.

So the fact that it says that that request is

12

unduly burdensome in time and scope --

13

MR. IARIA:

Objection.

I mean, you're trying

14

to have him speak to legal objections that are made as a

15

part of it, be it relevancy -- but for the sake of this

16

case, if you want to go through collection notes as

17

well, I would have to review them with my client and see

18

if there is any material that can't be produced as part

19

of it.

20

MR. BACH:

But the point you made in this

21

objection was it was too difficult to produce, and

22

you're telling me now that it's not too burdensome to

23

produce.

24

All you have to do is print it out.


MR. IARIA:

I don't know what's on these, so

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 144 of 253 PageID 2833

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

105
1

we would have to review the notes.

separate objection based on that.

MR. BACH:

So I may have a

That's what it says right here.

It

doesn't say anything about the fact it is privileged or

any other information.

to print it out.

MR. IARIA:

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

10

It says it was unduly burdensome

It sure does.

Now, the insurance that was before, is that

regular?

11

MR. IARIA:

12

specify, "before?"

13

BY MR. BACH:

14

Q.

Objection.

Can you

On the 11th and 12th, it showed, I think, that

15

you were - at least recently when I was going through

16

it, that there were some escrow payments for insurance.

17

Is that or regular insurance?

18
19

A.

Regular insurance.
MS. BACH:

Clarification question.

If I am

20

looking at the late fees and other charges on what's

21

labeled as Exhibit 11, and I compare it to what was

22

Group Exhibit 10, I will be able to get the

23

clarification what all of those are?

24

that's labeled Balance of Late Fees or Other Charges,

So the column

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 145 of 253 PageID 2834

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

106
1

not the balance, the actual late fee and charge

assessments?

A.

Yes.

You can compare that to what was

actually on Exhibit 10, and that should be the invoices

that match those to these charges.

MS. BACH:

I will not ask anything about those

and look at the two comparisons.

BY MR. BACH:

Q.

Is there something that if someone looks at

10

the computer system, it tells them where the note is, in

11

terms of custody of the note?

12

A.

No, not on the system.

13

Q.

Okay.

So when you went to go prepare for

14

today, how did you know where the note was or were you

15

told or?

16

A.

Well, I reviewed the note jacket and I saw all

17

the sheets that showed that it was sent to counsel, and

18

then I verified with counsel to make sure they actually

19

had it in their possession.

20
21

Q.

You checked the note jacket, which is really

the answer my question?

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

But the note jacket is really what the answer

24

to the question -- That's how you keep track of the

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 146 of 253 PageID 2835

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

107
1

custody of that, because the note jacket stays no matter

if the note leaves the building?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Now, if you sell a loan or the loan gets paid

off, what happens to the note jacket?

6
7

MR. IARIA:
case.

Try and keep this moving.

8
9

Objection to relevance to this

THE WITNESS:

The note, if it's sold, the note

jacket would go to the original note, to the new owners

10

and we would have a copy that we would archive.

11

was paid in full, we would stamp the note, "Paid in

12

full," make a copy of it, and send the original note

13

back to the borrower.

14
15

Q.

Is Allison Martin the only one who is

authorized to sign allonges and assignments?

16

MR. IARIA:

Objection to relevance to this

17

case.

18

permissible evidence in this matter.

Not even a question that would lead to

19

THE WITNESS:

20

BY MR. BACH:

21

Q.

note is not blank.

23

correct?
A.

I am unaware.

You would agree that the mortgage -- that the

22

24

If it

It is endorsed to a specific party,

Correct.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 147 of 253 PageID 2836

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

108
1
2

Q.

Is that normally how the Beal Companies hold

notes or are some blank?

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

Objection, relevance.
We would normally have it

assigned to a specific entity.

some in the past that have been endorsed in blank.

7
8

MR. BACH:
minutes.

However, I have seen

Let's take a break for about five

I may be done pretty quickly.


MR. IARIA:

Okay.

10

Off the record.

(Off the record.)

11

EXAMINATION

12

BY MS. BACH:

13

Q.

Back on the record.

I have Exhibit 4 and

14

Exhibit 9 in my possession.

15

you so you can see so we don't have to go digging.

16

I am going to hand them to

If you look at the second page of Exhibit

17

4 and the second page of Exhibit 9, those are the two

18

pages that are signed by Allison --

19

A.

Martin?

20

Q.

Allison Martin, correct?

21

A.

Correct.

22

Q.

If you look at these signature pages, just a

23

really quick question.

24

a mark there.

There is a mark here.

There is a mark there.

There is

I pointed right

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 148 of 253 PageID 2837

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

109
1

next to the LNV Corporation, next to like the signature

block on Exhibit 9, and then Exhibit 4, just next to the

LNV Corporation.

A.

Do you know what those are?

No.

MR. BACH:

Is that on the original, too?

MS. BACH:

It's on the originals, too.

Q.

before?

A.

No.

10

Q.

There is a couple people that I believe work

11

with you.

12

are?

Have you ever seen those types of marks

I just want to know what their positions

Do you know who Burton Brillhart is?

13

A.

Explain.

14

Q.

What was his position while he worked there?

15
16

MR. IARIA:
case.

17

THE WITNESS:

18
19

Q.

I don't recall.

Is there a Tom Montgomery that works with

you?

20

MR. IARIA:

21

THE WITNESS:

22

BY MS. BACH:

23

Q.

24

Objection, relevance to this

Objection, relevance.
No.

Tim Taylor?
MR. IARIA:

Objection, foundation, relevance.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 149 of 253 PageID 2838

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

110
1

If we could explain even where these names are coming

from?

MS. BACH:

From their website and the links on

people.

about the specific account.

These are people my clients talked to and asked

A.

BY MS. BACH:

Q.

For which corporation?

A.

For Beal.

10

Q.

For Beal in general?

11

A.

Yeah.

12
13

Tim Taylor is, I think, CFO.

MS. IARIA:

I'm sorry, Counsel.

You said your

client has talked to those individuals?

14

MS. BACH:

Talked to them or have received

15

correspondence from them -- I should clarify what I

16

said -- with their names on them.

17

Q.

Randy Leverette?

18

MR. IARIA:

19

THE WITNESS:

20

VP of loss mitigation.

21

BY MS. BACH:

22

Q.

Of which corporation?

23

A.

MGC.

24

Q.

MGC.

Objection, relevance.
He is an ex-employee, used to be

And when did he leave?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 150 of 253 PageID 2839

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

111
1

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

Objection, relevance.
I don't recall when he was

actually -- He was let go prior to, I think, or he left

on his own prior to 2010.

Q.

Is there an Erica Thomas at MGC?

A.

Say that again.

Q.

Erica Thomas?

A.

No.

MR. IARIA:

10

BY MS. BACH:

11

Q.

12

Objection, relevance.

Was there ever an Erica Thomas that worked

with you?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

When did she leave?

15

MR. IARIA:

16

THE WITNESS:

17
18
19
20
21

Sometime within the last two

years.
MR. IARIA:

Counsel, if we could get this to

the actual -- anything to do with this case at all?


MS. BACH:

Every one of these people have

something to do with this case.

22

MR. IARIA:

23

MS. BACH:

24

Objection, relevance.

With Beal Bank.


These are MGC employees who have

communications with them.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 151 of 253 PageID 2840

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

112
1

MR. IARIA:

Also, we're talking about a

bankruptcy filing, amounts due and owing and maybe

standing issues.

a list of names of employees.

MR. BACH:

they are employees.

You're just going through and reading

There is no harm in just asking if

MR. IARIA:

record.

BY MS. BACH:

10

Q.

I am making my objection for the

Rob Ackerman?

11

MR. IARIA:

12

THE WITNESS:

13

MS. BACH:

14

Objection, relevance.
Yes.

If you want to stipulate you're

going to object to all of these names.

15

MR. IARIA:

Sure.

We can do that.

If there

16

is a series of 30 postcards with names on them, then I

17

will make a blanket objection to the specific names.

18

MR. BACH:

That's fine.

19

BY MS. BACH:

20

Q.

Does Rob Ackerman work with you?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

What is his title?

23

A.

I believe his title is chief litigation, but

24

he is also SVP.

He is on the CLMG side.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 152 of 253 PageID 2841

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

113
1
2
3
4

Q.

Do you know -- Strike that.

Bill Sowerman?

(phonetic).
A.

That's Bill Sowerman, yes.

SVP over CLMG.

He was the -- is

He is no longer with the company.

Q.

Do you know when he left?

A.

Beginning of this year.

Q.

Monthly I can you recall?

A.

She is also an ex-employee, used to be SVP for

9
10

Beal. She is no longer with the company.

She left a few

years ago.

11

Q.

James Irwin?

12

A.

James Irwin is the president of CMG and he is

13

still there.

14

Q.

Jacob Cherner?

15

A.

Jacob Cherner is the president of the

16

company.

17

there.

(phonetic).

He is over all of the entities and he is still

18

Q.

When you say, "the company," you mean Beal?

19

A.

Beal, yeah.

20

Q.

Steven Costas?

21

A.

No.

He used to be chief litigation.

22

longer with the company.

23

a year.

24

Q.

He is no

He has been gone for at least

And Michael Brown?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 153 of 253 PageID 2842

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

114
1
2

A.

has been gone within the last year as well.

3
4

Michael Brown was SVP of our accounting and he

Q.

I only have one more name for you.

Connie

Johnson?

A.

Connie Johnson was over on the CLMG side.

was a portfolio manager and she is no longer with the

company as of this year.

Q.

Scott Burns.

10

Way earlier today you mentioned there is a


I just want to clarify.

He is the

bankruptcy manager from DMI?

11

A.

I believe Scott is over bankruptcy.

12

he is foreclosure.

13

bankruptcy with DMI.

14

Q.

I believe

If not, I can supply who was under

Does MGC have many bank accounts?

15

MR. IARIA:

16

THE WITNESS:

17

BY MS. BACH:

18

Q.

19

She

Objection, vague.
I'm sorry.

What?

Does MGC have many -- Strike that.

Does all

payments to MGC go to the same account?

20

A.

I don't know.

21

Q.

Are there multiple addresses and locations for

23

A.

There are.

24

Q.

Are there different addresses for payments for

22

MGC?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 154 of 253 PageID 2843

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

115
1
2

MGC and LNV than there are offices?


A.

Let me get some clarification.

There is going

to be different -- e-mail address or the address I gave

you for where I am located out of is the corproate

office, the 7195 Dallas Parkway.

are -- where you send correspondence and payments to is

an Illinois address.

who is our subservicer.

addresses for correspondence and payments for Cinlar,

There is some that

That's because it's going to DMI


There is also different

10

which is in New Jersey.

11

between the different addresses and such.

12

being subserviced by DMI.

13

directed to that address here in Illinois.

14
15

Q.

So that's the difference


The loan is

The payments are to be

Do you know how many addresses DMI may have

for payments?

16

A.

For us, one.

17

Q.

Do those addresses for payments change or has

18

it been stagnant since the inception of this loan?

19

A.

I don't recall.

20

Q.

Do you know what the Illinois address is?

21

A.

It's on one of the letters, I believe.

22

MR. IARIA:

23

THE WITNESS:

24

Lake Zurich address.


One Corporate Drive, 3360 Lake

Zurich, Illinois.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 155 of 253 PageID 2844

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

116
1
2

Q.

To the best of your knowledge, that's the only

payment address they had?

MR. IARIA:

MS. BACH:

A.

Can you specify a time line?


From the inception of this loan.

Well, this loan has only been subserviced by

DMI since April 2010.

department's address for correspondence.

payments are also sent to One Corporate Drive, Lake

Zurich, is the only one I am aware of.

10

Q.

This is the customer service


The overnight

Do you have any procedures in place to verify

11

the notes and mortgages to make sure they are not

12

fraudulent?

13

MR. IARIA:

Objection, the question

14

presupposes a whole slue of potentially -- well, I don't

15

know what you're getting at in this question.

16

could -- just procedures on whether or not things are

17

fraudulent is the question?

18

MS. BACH:

19

rephrase it.

20

Q.

If you

I will strike the question.

Let me

Are there procedures in place, when a new loan

21

is acquired, to verify that the documents are true and

22

correct?

23

A.

Is there a procedure in place?

24

Q.

To your knowledge, has Beal or any of its

I don't know.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 156 of 253 PageID 2845

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

117
1

subsidiaries been sued?

MR. IARIA:

MS. BACH:

Sued at all?
I am finishing the sentence.

I am

figuring out the right way of phrasing it.

knowledge, has Beal Companies or any other entities been

sued for fraudulent notes or mortgages?

MR. IARIA:

THE WITNESS:

To your

Objection, relevance.
Not that I am aware of.

BY MS. BACH:

10

Q.

11

Strike that.

12

your knowledge been sued by the parties they purchased

13

their debts from?

14
15

Have they been sued from any of the parties -Has Beal Companies or its subsidiaries to

MR. IARIA:

Objection, relevance to this

case.

16

THE WITNESS:

17

MS. BACH:

18

question.

19

it.

20

Q.

Not that I am aware of.

We're going to strike that

I will come up with a better way of phrasing

Are you aware of a complaint that was filed in

21

accordance with this mortgage in July of 2008 with the

22

Attorney General's Office?

23
24

MR. IARIA:

Objection, relevance.

There is a

bankruptcy proceeding.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 157 of 253 PageID 2846

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

118
1

THE WITNESS:

BY MS. BACH:

Q.

I am not aware.

Are you aware that at one point this loan was

supposed to go from GMAC to Aurora Loan?

A.

No.

Q.

Do you know the EIN numbers for the various

corporations under Beal Bank?

A.

No.

Q.

How many --

10

MR. IARIA:

Counsel, I don't want to keep

11

going with the blanket objection.

12

get this back on track to reality here.

13

BY MS. BACH:

14

Q.

15
16

How many affidavits do you sign?


MR. IARIA:

MS. BACH:

18

Q.

Let me finish the question.

How many affidavits do you sign in accordance

with either foreclosure proceedings or proof of claims?

20

MR. IARIA:

21

Ever?

22

BY MS. BACH:

23

Q.

24

Objection, relevance to this

case.

17

19

If you would kindly

Do you have a time line, Counsel?

I am just thinking about it for since 2012.

In a typical month.

I will make it easier.

A typical

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 158 of 253 PageID 2847

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

119
1

month.

MR. IARIA:

Objection.

It has no bearing at

all to this case and we're almost at the end of this.

don't want to threaten to walk out, but we've got to get

this back on track to relevant information pertaining to

this bankruptcy proceeding.

THE WITNESS:

BY MS. BACH:

Q.

On average, one a month.

When you -- Do you make the determination

10

yourself whether there is going to be mortgage insurance

11

on a claim?

12

A.

I do not.

13

Q.

Do you have a copy of the servicing

14

agreement?

15

MR. IARIA:

Could you specify?

16

BY MS. BACH:

17

Q.

Between LNV and GMAC?

18

A.

LNV and GMAC?

19

Q.

MGC.

20

A.

There is one that is out there.

21

currently have one with me.

22

Q.

23
24

I don't

Would you be able to get a copy of that?


MR. IARIA:

Objection, relevance to this

case.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 159 of 253 PageID 2848

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

120
1

THE WITNESS:

BY MS. BACH:

Q.

Yes.

Do you use Pfizer?


MR. IARIA:

Objection.

For the record, the

debtor's client or the actual debtor is asking the

questions at the deposition now, just for the record.

THE WITNESS:

BY MS. BACH:

Q.

10

We used to.

Do you remember when the last time you used

them was?

11

A.

It would have been prior to the service

12

transfer to DMI, which would have been around April

13

2010.

14

Q.

Is GMAC themselves licensed in Illinois?

15

A.

GMAC?

16

Q.

I am getting my letters mixed.

17

A.

MGC, and I don't know.

18

Q.

Is DMI?

19

A.

I don't know.

20

Q.

I only have a couple more questions left.

One

21

of the names that I missed earlier is did you work with

22

a Jeffrey Shearhart?

23

A.

CLNG litigation.

24

Q.

Charles King?

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 160 of 253 PageID 2849

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

121
1

A.

Charles King is a DMI employee.

Q.

Do you know which department he is in?

A.

I believe they are their litigation

department.

5
6

MR. IARIA:

talking on the record and asking additional questions.

7
8

For the record, the debtor is now

MR. BACH:

She is talking to counsel.

allowed and she should be.

MR. IARIA:

It seems like she is running the

10

deposition at this point.

11

redirect?

12
13

She is

MS. BACH:
Q.

14

Could I engage in brief

I have one final question.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime?


MR. IARIA:

Objection.

I think you should

15

focus it to a felony for the purposes of testimony, but

16

that's --

17

THE WITNESS:

I have had a DWI back in 1999,

18

which I served two years on probation, which I completed

19

the probation.

20
21
22
23

That's it.

MS. BACH: I have nothing further of this


witness.
MR. IARIA:

Counsel, are you all set?

brief, brief redirect.

24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Some

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 161 of 253 PageID 2850

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

122
1

EXAMINATION

BY MR. IARIA:

Q.

Would a specific person be assigned to one

specific case at DMI, to the best of your knowledge, or

would a group of individuals potentially work on one

case?

A.

I believe it would be a group of individuals.

Q.

Previously you testified as to the custodian

division, and there was a chart outlining the name.

10

Does MGC, Beal, LNV, do they all have equal access to

11

the custodian recordkeeping and notes?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

At the time the Proof of Claim was filed, how

14

did the original note exist and what were the specific

15

endorsements on that?

16

A.

The original note was with counsel back in

17

June of 2011.

18

was LNV Corporation.

19

Q.

What the note was at the time, the owner

In regards to Exhibit 4, the green cover sheet

20

that was previously entered into the record, that

21

document had a specific date on it.

22

the allonge was created on that date or would it have

23

been around that date?

24

A.

Does that mean that

It could have been either/or.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 162 of 253 PageID 2851

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

123
1

Q.

One of the later questions -- I am going to

briefly touch on this -- you showed little marks on the

allonges and you said you have never seen them before.

Could it be have you ever even looked for those kinds of

marks before?

A.

No.

Q.

LNV and Beal Bank, do they share the same

8
9

address?
A.

They share the same location, LNV though is

10

shown as being 7195 Dallas Parkway.

11

is actually the same physical address.

12

Q.

6000 Legacy Drive

If ownership was transferred from LNV to Beal,

13

and say it wasn't an active foreclosure or bankruptcy,

14

would the note stay in the same custodian spot?

15

it move at all?

16

A.

It would not move.

17

Q.

One last issue.

Would

Counsel briefly touched on

18

payments information for DMI.

19

pointed out a Lake Zurich address.

20

P.O. Box address for payments accepted, do you know?

21

A.

22
23
24

Just to clarify, we
Could there be a

I don't recall.
MR. IARIA:

And that's all I have for

redirect.
MR. BACH:

Nothing.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 163 of 253 PageID 2852

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

124
1
2
3

MR. IARIA:

I am going to reserve for the

transcript.
* * * * FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT * * * *

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 164 of 253 PageID 2853

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

125
1
2
3
4

I, WENDY M. STRICKLER, a Certified


Shorthand Reporter of the State of Illinois, CSR License
No. 084-003257, do hereby certify:
That previous to the commencement of the
examination of the aforesaid witness, the witness was
duly sworn by me to testify the whole truth concerning
the matters herein;

5
6
7
8
9

That the foregoing deposition transcript


was stenographically reported by me and was thereafter
reduced to typewriting under my personal direction and
constitutes a true and accurate record of the testimony
given and the proceedings had at the aforesaid
deposition;
That the said deposition was taken before
me at the time and place specified;

10
11
12
13

That I am not a relative or employee or


attorney or counsel for any of the parties herein, nor a
relative or employee of such attorney or counsel for any
of the parties hereto, nor am I interested directly or
indirectly in the outcome of this action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my
hand at Chicago, Illinois this 5TH day of August, 2014.

14
15
16

_____________________________________
WENDY M. STRICKLER, CSR
CSR License No. 084-003257

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 165 of 253 PageID 2854

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014

126
1
2
3
4
5
6

ERRATA SHEET
I, BRET MALONEY, have read the foregoing
transcript of my deposition taken on July 11, 2014 and,
except for any corrections noted below, it is a true and
correct transcript of my deposition given on the date
aforesaid.
CORRECTIONS BASED ON ERRORS IN
PAGE
LINE
REPORTING OR TRANSCRIPTION
____
____
_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

8
9

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

____

____

_________________________

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

____________________
BRET MALONEY
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF DUPAGE

)
)

20
21
22
23
24

subscribed and sworn to before me


this_____day of_____________,2014.

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 166 of 253 PageID 2855

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
127
A
a.m 1:8 4:5
A2 100:2
A2155 100:1
100:3
able 6:15
31:19
32:2
34:19
40:4
75:18
76:1,10
85:14
105:22
119:22
absolutely
91:3
Acceptance
10:10,17
10:20
accepted
123:20
accepts
12:3
access 15:4
22:11,20
22:24
122:10
accessed
22:13
accessible
24:18
25:14
account
22:17,17
93:19
95:20,23
96:1,2,14
97:6
110:5
114:19
accounting
21:24
74:15
114:1
accounts

114:14
accurate
37:3
125:7
Ackerman
112:10,20
acquire
81:9
acquired
48:13
49:3
116:21
acquisit...
62:19
action 66:4
125:12
active
123:13
actual 7:8
24:8
38:13
41:18
59:20
82:3 85:5
85:11,12
85:15
87:15
94:4
106:1
111:19
120:5
add 53:8
added 39:18
41:19,20
additional
25:17
26:19
35:13,14
101:10
121:6
address 4:3
4:22 13:6
31:6
115:3,3,7
115:13,20
115:22

116:2,7
123:8,11
123:19,20
addresses
114:21,24
115:9,11
115:14,17
adjustable
98:10
Administ...
13:24
advertised
84:17
Advertis...
84:18
advising
69:14
affidavits
118:14,18
affiliated
4:2 8:15
10:12,15
aforesaid
125:3,7
126:4
ago 5:19
6:7 16:2
113:10
agree 40:8
46:24
70:1
101:23
107:21
agreed 16:2
agreement
11:11,14
11:14,19
12:6,16
19:9,9,21
20:2,20
33:3
48:21
59:2
119:14
agreements
12:11

19:14
ahead 27:11
69:20
allison
47:16,18
55:9,10
56:8,12
68:7,11
78:8
107:14
108:18,20
allonge
33:23
35:14
38:18
39:5
40:20,22
41:1,5,17
41:24
47:5,21
47:23
53:20
55:1,9
58:13
61:10
78:14
122:22
allonges
39:3,17
42:5 43:7
50:13
58:21
78:17,20
101:10
102:15,24
107:15
123:3
allowed
121:8
allows 6:11
6:13
ambiguous
8:7 18:4
amount
65:11,12
65:13,15

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

65:22,23
67:20,20
84:13
95:11,15
95:24
96:9,11
amounts
64:23
65:1
70:20
112:2
analyst
29:22,22
30:4
and/or
24:12
angle 51:12
51:15
Anselmo 2:2
34:7
36:24
64:22
answer 6:16
57:10
73:3,6,9
106:21,23
answers
93:11
102:4,13
103:11
anticipa...
66:17
anybody
12:10
29:8,16
29:18
54:22
apologize
47:21
53:6
63:22
90:11
appear 86:9
87:15
appeared
1:22 2:5

appears
47:24
54:5 80:9
83:21
86:7,10
86:22
87:14
89:11
applicat...
21:4
applied
94:14
95:9 96:2
96:21
97:15
98:14
applies
97:7
apply
102:17
appreciate
16:13
28:1
Approxim...
56:2
April 33:1
33:12,15
33:16
116:6
120:12
archive
107:10
areas 21:6
21:9
arrangem...
16:21
arrearages
65:22
arrears
67:21
68:3 95:3
arrive
16:18
asked 5:20
16:1 77:1
103:22

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 167 of 253 PageID 2856

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
128
110:4
asking
52:18
53:5 58:3
59:1 65:9
65:10
68:22
69:2 72:6
98:5
112:5
120:5
121:6
assess 26:3
26:10,11
assessed
65:24
68:4 85:1
85:3
93:19
assessments
106:2
asset 48:21
58:15
59:2
assets
19:22
assigned
32:1,10
34:3
78:11,22
108:5
122:3
assignment
36:7,8,9
58:21
61:22
73:15
74:18
75:3,8,14
76:22
77:8,10
77:15
79:11
101:15,16
102:24,24
assignments

7:2 50:13
73:11
78:16,19
80:10
102:15
107:15
assigns
77:17
assist 29:9
assistants
93:7
associated
31:3
83:22
assume 15:8
28:8 43:5
54:22
79:1
94:13
95:6
attach
34:14
attached
38:16,19
38:21
39:6
40:22
42:8 47:4
54:17,19
65:2 70:8
83:15
85:9,10
100:23
101:21
102:4,13
102:20,22
attachment
70:22
attachments
63:11
attend 5:20
attorney
32:4
36:20
53:3
117:22

125:11,11
attorney...
55:13,15
55:20
attorneys
18:12
August
14:11
15:10,12
15:13
96:22
125:13
Aurora
118:4
Austin
13:24
authorized
107:15
authorizes
55:19
automati...
26:1 92:5
available
31:20
104:1
average
119:7
aware 5:24
10:18
11:3,7
29:4
60:16
69:9 73:5
104:6
116:9
117:8,16
117:20
118:1,3
B
B 3:7 37:17
B-R-E-T
4:21
B-U-R-R-I-S
64:18
Bach 1:19

1:20 3:4
3:4 4:8
4:17 5:11
8:9 12:2
14:17
17:22
18:7 20:7
20:23
22:14
27:2 30:9
30:13
34:8,14
34:18,21
35:5,8,12
35:22
36:12,17
37:7,10
38:5
40:14
42:13
43:4
46:13
47:16
48:24
49:16
52:9,17
53:2,9,14
56:1,7,11
57:10,19
57:23
59:10
61:8 63:5
63:14
65:6,9
66:1,24
67:5,7,13
68:10,15
69:24
71:20
72:23
73:18
74:11,14
74:24
75:17
77:21
79:5,17

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

79:20
81:14
82:23
83:16
87:24
88:3,13
90:10,13
90:19
91:3,11
98:2,6,24
102:12
104:20
105:3,8
105:13,19
106:6,8
107:20
108:7,12
109:5,6
109:22
110:3,7
110:14,21
111:10,20
111:23
112:5,9
112:13,18
112:19
114:17
116:4,18
117:3,9
117:17
118:2,13
118:17,22
119:8,16
120:2,8
121:7,12
121:20
123:24
Bachelor
13:23
Bachelor's
14:3
back 14:13
14:21
15:24
23:2
26:13

27:24
34:19
36:17
39:19,21
43:18,21
50:16
51:10
56:17
58:8
59:11,11
63:13
69:2 72:1
86:9
87:10,23
88:6 99:9
103:9
107:13
108:13
118:12
119:5
121:17
122:16
background
62:11
balance
98:8,14
105:24
106:1
bank 8:3,3
8:7,10,11
8:13 9:3
9:7,9
11:2,10
11:12
12:18
17:14
19:22
20:10
35:15
36:8
40:21
58:16,18
59:6 60:3
60:6
62:13
70:4

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 168 of 253 PageID 2857

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
129
72:22
73:13
75:10
81:5,6,9
103:2
111:22
114:14
118:7
123:7
banking
15:1,5
bankrupt...
94:8
bankruptcy
1:1,10
4:9 5:6
7:5,5
21:7 27:8
29:21
30:12,14
31:16
32:8,15
32:18,20
37:16
45:16
63:17,23
64:15
66:19
67:16
88:2,4
94:19
112:2
114:10,11
114:13
117:24
119:6
123:13
bar 50:9
52:4,4,22
53:8,17
80:5
based 26:8
66:4 70:1
79:1,6
97:23
98:11

105:2
126:5
basic 26:16
27:24
28:2
103:8
basically
21:10,18
28:16
65:14
92:22
102:5,7
basis 21:1
29:6
86:18
94:14
97:16
Beal 8:1,2
8:2,10,13
8:16 9:3
9:4,5,7,9
11:2,10
11:12
12:18
13:8 14:8
14:18,24
15:14,18
17:1,14
20:10
28:24
29:8
32:22
35:14
36:8
40:20
41:12,14
42:18
46:6
47:14
53:23
54:12
56:17
58:4,5,16
58:18
59:6 60:3
60:6,23

70:4
72:21
73:13
75:9
77:12
103:2
108:1
110:9,10
111:22
113:9,18
113:19
116:24
117:5,11
118:7
122:10
123:7,12
bear 96:15
bearing
75:14
119:2
Beginning
113:6
behalf 1:22
2:5 10:24
12:4 66:9
69:12,17
believe
9:13 13:8
51:16
53:20
55:18
64:18
109:10
112:23
114:11,11
115:21
121:3
122:7
best 84:23
116:1
122:4
better 93:2
117:18
beyond 14:2
101:7
big 55:8

bill 24:16
80:14
89:16
113:1,3
billed 85:6
85:7
89:12,23
bit 18:23
26:15
62:3
84:12
blank
107:22
108:2,6
blanket
112:17
118:11
block 109:2
blunt 22:16
borrower
94:19
107:13
bottom
84:13
87:20
100:14,15
bought
19:22
33:12
Boulevard
1:14,20
4:5
Box 123:20
boxes 49:24
break 74:10
74:12
79:18
108:7
breakdown
27:16
82:12
84:24
Bret 1:7
3:3 4:6
4:10,13
4:19

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

126:2,18
brief
121:10,23
121:23
briefly
123:2,17
Brillhart
109:12
bring 75:18
75:20
76:1
85:14
87:23
104:4
bringing
44:22
broken
86:11
93:24
Brook 1:14
1:21
brought
27:6,11
36:20,20
37:13,13
63:11
73:17
77:8
82:13
83:1
Brown 29:17
113:24
114:1
Build 68:8
building
13:10,17
13:19
57:13
107:2
bunch 82:12
burdensome
103:16
104:12,22
105:5
Burns 114:9
Burris

64:18
Burris'
64:21
Burton
109:12
business
4:22 9:20
13:23
60:22
buyer 49:21
C
C-E-N-L-A-R
20:17
C.S.R 1:12
calculate
65:15
call 14:9
40:1
42:13
60:24
63:19
82:16,16
90:1
called 1:9
4:14 8:10
45:7
76:20
80:13
83:3
calls 46:11
55:16
65:4,19
65:20
67:4
77:19
card 28:4
care 21:10
21:14,18
21:24
28:17,18
64:10
70:18
Carol 1:3
carried
8:22

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 169 of 253 PageID 2858

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
130
case 5:23
7:19
12:18
16:11
20:6
30:10,11
31:11
37:16
39:18
48:23
49:15,21
66:3
86:10
87:23,24
88:2,4
104:16
107:7,17
109:16
111:19,21
117:15
118:16
119:3,24
122:4,6
Cassling
4:12
cataloged
25:11
43:12
49:8,24
50:11
categories
39:4
category
93:10
CCO 28:23
Cenlar
19:12,13
20:4,11
20:17
certain
11:1 20:4
60:19
certific...
73:18
certified
35:18

73:16,24
75:1
125:1
certify
77:1
125:2
CFO 110:6
chain 28:9
49:19
51:3
change
15:16,18
15:20
62:23
72:19,20
72:20
115:17
changed
50:20
60:2
69:10
Chapter 1:5
45:15
93:23
94:9,16
94:19
charge 26:1
62:14
64:13
85:18
106:1
charges
27:17,19
83:15
85:3
98:18,19
98:20
103:18
105:20,24
106:5
charging
88:4
Charles
120:24
121:1
chart 33:9

50:16
122:9
charts
26:20
check 12:5
12:17
24:3
25:11
87:12
checked
106:20
checks
24:12
Cherner
113:14,15
Chicago
30:18
125:13
chief
112:23
113:21
choose
24:23
Chris 2:2
6:2 29:13
29:21
83:5 93:9
CHRISTOPHER
1:4
Cinlar
115:9
Civil 1:10
6:8
claim 37:16
37:17
38:13,19
38:24
44:4
52:10
54:18,19
62:24
63:8,23
65:23
66:9,18
67:3,9,10
67:23

68:6,14
68:16,17
68:17
69:12,16
69:17
70:2,5,7
70:22
71:6,8,16
72:2,21
84:1,2,4
90:24
119:11
122:13
claimant
69:3
72:14
claims 25:5
64:6
118:19
clarific...
105:19,23
115:2
clarify
18:6 19:6
66:23
110:15
114:9
123:18
clear 7:11
60:2
92:16
clearer
54:4,7
client 65:8
88:11
104:17
110:13
120:5
clients
110:4
CLMG 9:24
10:2,3,4
13:3,5
33:11
35:23
50:18,21

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

58:1,2,4
76:14,19
112:24
113:4
114:5
CLNG 120:23
close 57:7
closing
58:7
CMG 76:18
113:12
coated
27:17
code 52:4,4
52:22
53:8,17
80:5
coded 50:9
codes 100:5
100:5,10
100:24
101:1
102:17
coding 85:3
89:1
99:15
collateral
36:5 41:7
41:18,23
42:1,4
43:6,10
45:22
50:6,23
50:24
51:6
79:22
81:21
82:6
collection
103:24
104:1,16
color 27:17
83:22
85:3,5
colored
83:22

column
93:13,15
95:6
105:23
columns
93:15
come 14:21
16:16
26:13
39:21
50:1
59:11
65:14
66:11,12
66:14
81:20
97:12
103:9
117:18
comes 97:3
coming
110:1
command
28:9
commence...
125:3
commercial
10:3 13:2
15:22
17:4
63:19
commissi...
1:13
communic...
65:7
communic...
111:24
companies
8:15
10:16
12:4,19
12:22
14:8,24
17:1 20:2
29:9
32:22

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 170 of 253 PageID 2859

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
131
41:14
54:13
108:1
117:5,11
company 9:6
10:12
15:17
33:8,9
44:18
45:7,11
45:12
46:5,6
48:2
53:19,23
97:9
113:4,9
113:16,18
113:22
114:7
compare
38:8
105:21
106:3
comparisons
106:7
complaint
117:20
completed
121:18
compliance
28:22
31:3
computer
17:3,12
17:13,17
18:2,8,11
26:4
60:19
106:10
concerned
7:10
concerning
125:4
conclude
21:20
conclusion

55:17
72:17
condesce...
32:7
condolences
16:12
confine
17:10
confirm
60:9
confused
100:17
Connect
80:13
Connie
114:3,5
constitutes
125:7
consumer
17:6
contact
5:22 29:5
contained
36:23,23
Contd 2:1
continua...
90:15
continue
86:24,24
90:12
continuing
16:10
contract
11:5,8
contractual
94:13,14
control
29:21
33:6 50:2
55:12,14
78:18
convicted
121:13
copies 22:4
23:3 27:5
27:6,16

35:3
36:13
40:1 42:4
50:6
73:15
75:11
80:9
83:22
copy 5:14
23:11
24:3,16
33:22
34:15,21
35:18
37:14,15
37:15
38:12
39:2 40:5
40:16
41:17,20
42:17
43:8 44:3
51:8 52:5
52:8
61:14
63:7,10
66:6
73:15,16
75:2,6,19
75:20
77:1,2
80:10,10
82:10
99:2
102:3,23
103:4
107:10,12
119:13,22
copying
35:11
corner
13:18
Corp 8:1,2
9:24 10:2
10:3,4
50:18

corporate
8:16,24
10:4,13
115:23
116:8
corporation
7:13,18
8:17 9:9
10:11,17
10:21
14:18
15:14,19
35:23
36:9
38:16,23
39:20
45:10
48:7
49:22
51:13,23
54:11
55:9
58:18
60:23
69:3,13
69:17
73:12,13
75:4,9
77:6,16
101:17
109:1,3
110:8,22
122:18
corporat...
118:7
corproate
115:4
correct
8:18 9:11
14:3,4
15:5,9,22
16:3,6,22
17:15,16
17:24
18:1,9,21
19:15,17

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

19:18,23
19:24
20:13
21:12
22:1,2
24:15,19
24:24
27:20
28:5,6,10
30:2,22
30:23
31:7,8,11
33:18
34:10,11
35:7,19
37:8
38:20
40:23,24
41:23
42:9 44:7
44:9,10
44:12,14
44:18,19
44:23
45:8,17
45:18
46:6,7,10
46:12
47:11,18
48:7,8,21
49:5
50:18
51:15
52:23
53:12
54:1,5,6
54:8,10
54:20,21
54:23,24
59:23
62:2
64:11,23
64:24
66:13,19
67:16
69:4,5

70:13,14
70:21,23
70:24
71:1,4
73:11,12
74:2,4
75:12,23
76:15,16
77:2,3,5
77:6,11
77:13
78:8,9
79:23,24
80:4,20
82:7,14
82:15
83:1,8
89:18
91:15,16
92:9,19
92:20,22
94:15
95:12,17
96:11,12
100:22
101:1,3,9
101:11,15
101:22
102:1,2,6
102:9,21
103:15,16
104:9
107:3,23
107:24
108:20,21
116:22
126:3
correction
56:16
81:18
corrections
126:3,5
correctly
30:15
correspo...
7:4 22:9

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 171 of 253 PageID 2860

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
132
110:15
115:6,9
116:7
correspo...
27:18
85:2
corresponds
85:4
cost 84:17
Costas
113:20
costs 65:23
67:22
83:18
84:3,18
84:24
counsel
1:18 2:1
5:14 31:3
65:17
66:3,5
68:5 69:9
69:12,15
75:11
97:17
106:17,18
110:12
111:18
118:10,20
121:7,22
122:16
123:17
125:11,11
county 4:2
4:3 35:18
77:1
126:19
couple 5:19
6:7 16:2
27:24
63:18
70:10
102:8
103:7
109:10
120:20

course
25:22
34:20
50:8
court 1:1
1:11 4:2
16:11
40:4,6
66:19
71:12
83:18
cover 96:18
122:19
created
34:12
122:22
creditors
63:18
crime
121:13
critical
45:16
CSR 125:1
125:16,16
curb 87:12
curiosity
14:20
current
94:23
96:10
100:20
currently
119:21
custodian
10:5 34:6
50:19,21
76:17
122:8,11
123:14
custody
49:19
51:1,1,4
106:11
107:1
customer
116:6

cut 26:18
D
D 3:1
d/b/a 45:2
45:10
daily 21:22
Dallas 4:23
13:7,12
13:16,18
115:5
123:10
damage
86:16
87:11,11
damaged
87:7
dark 83:8,9
darker
84:16
data 89:1
date 4:4
5:10 34:2
37:7 38:4
40:13
41:1,5,9
41:15
42:19
43:3,9
47:10,13
47:22,22
48:14
49:4,6,6
50:10
58:9,10
58:19
60:5,19
61:7
62:22
63:4
67:15
68:23
70:2,21
74:8,23
79:2,3,7
79:8

81:15,15
81:17
82:22
86:8 90:6
90:16
91:10
94:3,9,11
94:13
95:6
122:21,22
122:23
126:3
dated 41:2
41:3
60:12
79:13
80:15
99:17
100:3
David 68:7
68:11
day 16:19
16:22
26:9 56:4
59:20
60:17
125:13
126:21
day-to-day
19:1 64:5
days 26:3
72:1
deal 56:15
dealing
32:9
93:22
debits
103:18
debtor
45:15
63:17
120:5
121:5
debtor's
120:5
debtors 1:5

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

1:22 32:4
93:13
debts
117:13
December
14:10
15:6,14
56:17
59:18,19
59:22,24
60:2,5
61:24
62:7,8
69:8
72:10,11
73:1
decided
60:17
62:12
decision
60:22
62:21
72:10
Deeds 76:24
default 7:4
28:15
29:22
30:4 32:9
87:2,2,3
defaults
92:9
Defendant
2:5
define 8:6
8:7
definition
92:16
degree 14:3
delinque...
25:18
delinquent
25:23
Dep 37:20
37:20
38:7 40:1
department

31:15,16
32:8 33:6
41:13,13
42:18
50:2
64:16,21
78:18
121:2,4
departme...
116:7
Depends
78:15
deponent
36:19,20
124:3
deponent's
4:6
deposit
97:6
deposited
97:4
deposition
1:6 3:8,9
3:9,10,10
3:11,11
3:12,12
3:13,13
3:14 4:10
5:5,7,13
5:15,20
5:22 6:11
6:24 7:10
15:24
27:1
29:10
32:17
34:16
35:1
37:19
38:1 40:9
40:10,16
41:21
42:7,13
42:16,22
43:1,8,22
43:24

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 172 of 253 PageID 2861

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
133
47:5
51:10
52:5,7
53:10
54:8,16
55:2 58:8
61:1,4,21
63:1,7
69:7
70:13
74:2,5,20
75:2,6,8
77:5,7,11
77:14
78:6 79:6
82:19
83:4,20
90:2,3
91:7,13
101:21
102:18
103:21
120:6
121:10
125:5,8,9
126:2,3
depositions
1:11
describe
86:12
described
102:5,17
description
55:24
100:9
descript...
99:11
designated
6:12
Desktop
18:14
83:24
85:10
92:4
101:18
detail

70:20
85:11
detailed
37:5
details
102:9,20
determin...
119:9
determine
31:17
determining
93:21
develop
50:6
Diehl 2:3
difference
13:13
38:12
52:2,17
68:22
79:14
115:10
different
8:20,21
8:23 10:8
11:6 12:1
13:3,4,10
17:5 19:5
19:7,10
19:11,16
21:6,8,9
23:3
27:19
32:19
36:13
38:9
39:16
44:17
50:5,14
52:8 70:6
72:24
77:17
78:2 85:2
86:7
87:21
90:14

91:5
92:12
103:6
114:24
115:3,8
115:11
differen...
94:22
difficult
23:17
37:15
92:18
104:21
digging
108:15
directed
115:13
direction
66:8
125:6
directly
98:12
125:12
director
6:12
disbursed
24:10
disclosing
6:14
Discovery
99:1
discussed
20:13
69:6
102:15,16
discussing
24:7 71:2
discussion
26:14
53:3
dismissed
27:9
94:12
distinction
69:22
87:4

distribute
73:14,22
DISTRICT
1:1
Ditech
44:23,24
45:3
Ditech.com
45:2,11
divide
94:17
division
1:2 13:2
122:9
DMI 64:4,7
69:9,12
72:18
89:6,7
102:23
114:10,13
115:7,12
115:14
116:6
120:12,18
121:1
122:4
123:18
DMIs 89:2
dobin 18:20
dock 43:14
docs 7:5
36:7
document
5:16,21
6:4,6
22:9,20
23:8,9,13
23:16
24:14
33:6 34:6
36:24
37:11,18
39:1,4
40:8 41:6
41:20,22
43:6 50:2

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

50:3,10
50:22
51:22
53:20
55:11,14
60:13
63:8
66:18
68:23
76:12
78:18
81:19
85:9 86:6
88:19
93:4
99:14
103:11
122:21
document...
50:23
documented
21:5 33:5
48:15
49:7
60:21
78:14
88:22
97:13,14
documents
7:12 10:5
10:6 22:4
23:3,15
26:19
27:10
34:22
35:6
36:21
43:14
47:20
49:21
50:10,20
52:22
53:18
55:21
57:14
58:4,6

60:8,9,14
60:18
62:9 68:1
68:4
76:13
80:20
81:20
82:8,13
82:24
85:9 86:5
90:14
91:5,17
93:5
97:18
102:4
116:21
doing 40:4
63:17
78:16,17
84:23
Dovenmuehle
18:18
30:19,20
31:10,17
32:16
64:7,8,12
65:16
66:12,15
66:16
67:2,19
71:3,10
71:21,21
72:13
73:2,5
99:21,23
100:13,16
100:18
Dovenmue...
18:19
65:17
Doyle 1:3
draw 81:8
drawn 38:22
53:21
Drive 13:9
13:11,19

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 173 of 253 PageID 2862

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
134
115:23
116:8
123:10
due 70:20
95:12
100:7
112:2
duly 4:14
125:4
DUPAGE
126:19
DWI 121:17

effective
59:17
60:5
62:22
69:8
72:11
94:11
EIN 118:6
either 46:9
48:10
55:6
56:20
118:19
E
either/or
E 3:1,7
122:24
e-mail
Electronic
88:24
75:4
115:3
electron...
earlier
88:21
18:23
elementary
39:2
63:21
48:17
employed
49:11
4:24 7:13
58:6,9
11:10
62:6 71:3 employee
78:12
39:15,18
79:5,12
121:1
84:11,12
125:10,11
97:2
employees
114:8
30:1 50:2
120:21
111:23
early 15:20
112:4,6
easier
employment
26:24
14:5
72:6
endorsed
118:24
75:15
easily
78:12,23
24:18
79:4,7
25:14
107:22
92:10
108:6
104:2
endorsement
EASTERN 1:2
38:15
education
44:11,13
14:2
45:6,9,17
educational
45:19,21
13:22
48:5

endorsem...
122:15
endorses
77:18
engage
121:10
enjoyed
14:18
enter 81:15
entered
22:6
31:24
41:8
60:20
122:20
enters 20:1
entire 6:17
75:13
entirety
89:22
entities
7:16 8:14
8:20,23
9:4 10:8
10:24
11:6 12:1
13:3,4
19:5 58:4
58:5
113:16
117:5
entity 45:7
69:10
108:5
equal
122:10
Erica 111:5
111:7,11
ERRATA
126:1
error 54:19
ERRORS
126:5
escrow
23:21,22
105:16

essentially
41:5
95:16
exhibit 5:7
estate
34:16
23:23
35:1
eventually
36:14
16:8
37:19,20
everybody
37:21
40:8
38:1,7
69:11
40:1,10
89:17
40:18
evidence
41:21
107:18
42:8,14
Ex 3:8,9,9
42:17,23
3:10,10
43:1,8,22
3:11,11
43:24
3:12,12
44:5 47:5
3:13,13
47:13
3:14
52:6,8
49:23
53:10
ex-employee
54:8,16
110:19
55:2 58:8
113:8
61:1,4,21
Exact
63:2,7,10
103:18
69:7
exactly
70:13
30:16
74:2,5,10
73:21
75:2,6,9
86:17
77:5,7,15
93:5
78:6 79:2
96:11
79:6,21
examination
82:19
3:4,4,5
83:4,20
4:16
90:2,3
108:11
91:7,13
122:1
98:23,24
125:3
101:21
examined
102:18
4:15
103:3,20
example
105:21,22
11:9 96:8
106:4
96:16
108:13,14
97:5
108:16,17
excellent
109:2,2
35:9
122:19
Excuse 39:7 exhibits
executed
36:10

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

40:5
103:21
exist 15:19
122:14
existence
54:20
exists
15:17
expected
14:19
experience
15:5
explain
26:8 32:8
84:22
91:17
97:18
98:4
109:13
110:1
explanation
52:11
78:21
Exs 74:20
extra 38:15
39:5
extras
27:21
73:15
F
F 13:24
facility
30:21
fact 72:13
74:1
104:11
105:4
facts 7:12
family 16:3
16:10
Fannie 9:13
9:15,16
9:18
far 7:10
8:3,4 9:1

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 174 of 253 PageID 2863

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
135
11:19
14:6
18:20
32:1 36:2
94:1
97:13
100:4
Farm 4:3
father-i...
16:5
FCC 8:8
FDIC 19:9
19:21,22
20:1,15
Fed 49:23
Federal 1:9
4:9 6:8
8:3,7
81:4,9
fee 26:1,10
85:5
106:1
feel 93:17
fees 26:4
65:23
67:22
83:18
84:3,24
98:18
105:20,24
felony
121:15
FHA 100:6
figure
53:14
57:4
80:23
81:14
92:9 96:6
figuring
117:4
file 22:5
30:6,6,17
32:1 36:5
37:1 41:7
41:8,9,18

41:23
42:1,2,4
43:6,10
43:11
45:22
50:24,24
51:6 68:5
68:22
71:9
79:22
80:7,9
81:21,22
81:23
82:1,2,6
filed 30:11
37:16
66:4,9,18
68:18,18
68:18,20
69:12,16
69:17
70:3,6
71:16
72:21
84:8
90:24
94:9,19
117:20
122:13
files 34:3
50:3,6
63:23
filing 64:6
70:21
83:18
112:2
final
121:12
financial
8:1,2,16
67:15
find 18:12
31:19
35:16
86:1 89:9
fine 20:23

26:7 35:5
49:16
69:23
72:12
73:8 74:4
83:12
84:19
103:19
112:18
finish
118:17
finishing
117:3
fire-safe
49:12
fireproof
42:2
firm 14:21
34:6,10
35:20
51:9
52:14
53:4
63:24
65:8,14
66:12,17
67:2,19
71:9
firm's 53:7
first 4:14
5:18,19
15:4 16:1
27:8
32:18,20
37:4
44:13
62:1 70:6
72:9 84:6
84:14
91:12
93:14
98:10,15
100:8
101:5
five 26:10
27:6

108:7
flip 84:20
85:16
floor 57:7
57:12
focus
121:15
folder 34:1
34:12
38:7 80:3
80:19
follow
26:24
46:14
following
81:19
follows
4:15
foreclosing
32:5
foreclosure
7:4 21:7
24:24
34:3 37:2
51:3 66:4
84:13,18
114:12
118:19
123:13
foregoing
125:5
126:2
forget
36:10
forgot 9:4
form 70:7
103:20
format
92:10
formerly
45:10
Fort 14:12
forward
42:16
59:7
foundation

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

68:8
109:24
four 27:6
44:8
Francisco
81:2
fraudulent
116:12,17
117:6
FRB 81:1
Freedman
2:2 34:7
36:24
64:22
full 40:5
61:14
96:3
107:11,12
function
18:22
21:10
function...
9:1 21:7
functions
8:21
17:19
18:5 21:1
21:18
28:16
29:20
funding
33:1
44:17
45:7,11
46:5 48:2
48:19
51:18,18
53:19,23
81:8
funds 12:3
94:1,23
94:24
95:18
96:17,24
97:12
further

121:20
124:3
G
general
11:21
21:1 31:3
32:11
65:11
87:22
110:10
General's
117:22
generate
92:4
generated
23:6
91:18,22
91:23
genuine
46:9,15
getting
15:24
29:9
30:19
51:10
68:13
116:15
120:16
give 11:9
13:21
14:7 15:7
34:19,23
40:6
49:13
61:2 75:6
82:10
given 4:11
92:15
103:14
125:7
126:3
gives 85:5
GMAC 32:21
33:12
45:1,4,6

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 175 of 253 PageID 2864

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
136
45:6,7,9
45:10,12
46:5
54:13
76:4
80:17
90:20
91:24
97:5 98:7
100:8,11
100:12,21
118:4
119:17,18
120:14,15
go 11:4
14:6 23:2
23:13,15
26:15,22
27:12,23
27:24
30:10
33:20
35:1,4,10
36:14,17
42:3,4,5
43:21,24
49:12
50:3,16
50:24
59:11
62:15
69:2,20
72:1 78:5
81:9
84:14
85:19
86:13
87:10
92:1,11
93:10
95:19,24
96:16
97:20,21
98:9,11
99:8,9
100:4

101:7
103:10,11
103:21
104:16
106:13
107:9
108:15
111:3
114:19
118:4
goes 9:2
25:8
47:17
59:7
73:20
84:19
86:6
93:21,22
going 5:12
16:18
18:5 24:1
26:13,14
32:13
35:3,10
36:12,13
37:18
38:6
39:21,21
40:6,15
42:13
43:21,23
47:2,3,24
50:16
52:2,15
57:9
62:12,22
63:12
64:4 65:9
69:22
70:8,16
74:1,11
74:14
75:13
79:21
82:8,10
82:11

83:15,17
85:20
88:10
93:15
97:24
103:18
105:15
108:14
112:3,14
115:2,7
117:17
118:11
119:10
123:1
124:1
good 56:15
61:9
64:14
grabbing
84:20
grace 25:19
graduated
13:24
Grant 31:1
31:2
Granting
94:10
Gray 44:21
46:8,22
46:23
green 42:17
42:17
83:8,9
122:19
group 1:19
14:8,24
17:1
32:22
48:20
62:9,19
82:16
98:23
105:22
122:5,7
guess 12:15
23:2

100:17
guessed
32:4
guessing
28:5 37:1
41:13
48:18
59:23
64:7 80:3
92:9
guy 26:6
H
H 3:7
half 9:21
61:19
Hamilton
31:1
hand 38:6
40:15
108:14
125:13
handed
33:24
41:12,23
79:22
83:19
97:18
handle 19:1
64:5
handles
19:13
handling
31:10,18
32:16
80:18
happen 25:5
39:7,10
61:20
76:7
happened
39:14
58:10,18
59:15,22
61:10,19
71:14

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

happens
107:5
hard 46:21
46:23
104:9
harm 112:5
harmed 87:7
87:8
head 64:20
hear 16:9
88:12
heard 6:7
27:3
hearing
5:21
held 11:1
15:8
help 85:24
96:23
99:2,6
helped 83:7
hereto
125:12
hereunto
125:13
high 28:9
89:20
histories
7:3 91:21
92:11,17
100:19
history
13:22
14:5 22:7
24:9
26:15,20
91:24
99:20,24
100:12
101:3
102:7,16
102:23
hold 82:9
108:1
holding
96:1,1

Home 80:13
81:9
Honorable
4:12
hospital
16:7
housed 21:4
23:10
42:2 82:3
huh 99:3
human 26:3
I
Iaria 2:2
3:5 8:6
11:22
14:16
17:20
18:4 20:5
20:21
21:2
22:12
26:18
30:7,12
34:5,11
34:17,20
35:2,7,10
35:20
36:10
37:3,8
42:10
46:11
47:12
48:22
49:14
52:7,11
52:24
53:6,12
55:16,22
56:5,9
57:8,17
57:21
59:8
63:10
65:4,7,19
66:23

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 176 of 253 PageID 2865

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
137
67:4,6,11
68:8,13
69:21
71:18
72:16
73:14
74:3,9,13
75:12
77:19
78:24
81:13
82:18
83:14
87:22
88:1,10
90:7,9,12
90:16
91:1,6
97:11,17
98:3,22
102:10
104:13,24
105:7,11
107:6,16
108:3,9
109:15,20
109:24
110:12,18
111:1,9
111:15,18
111:22
112:1,7
112:11,15
114:15
115:22
116:3,13
117:2,7
117:14,23
118:10,15
118:20
119:2,15
119:23
120:4
121:5,9
121:14,22
122:2

123:22
124:1
idea 9:19
11:21
13:21
14:7 15:7
42:16
49:13
80:19
81:16
83:19
103:8
identifi...
5:9 38:3
40:12
43:3
53:24
61:6 63:3
74:7,22
82:21
90:5 91:2
91:9
identify
42:21
ignorance
32:3 39:7
Illinois
1:1,13,15
1:21 2:4
4:3,6
75:15
77:1
115:7,13
115:20,24
120:14
125:1,13
126:19
image 22:21
imaged 23:8
24:5,13
images 22:4
imaging
22:10
23:9,13
24:14
39:1,4

41:13
42:18
81:19
immediately
96:10
important
8:12
16:11
39:13
inception
115:18
116:4
include
12:3
65:10,11
66:8
included
38:23
39:5
54:18
85:14
includes
27:7
52:13
incorrectly
38:23
indicate
46:18
76:9
indirectly
125:12
individual
92:6
individuals
31:24
110:13
122:5,7
informally
59:3
information
21:3
25:11
37:5
45:20,24
52:14
64:22

65:2,5,14
65:18,20
66:16
67:1,8
71:2,4
88:14
89:4,7
93:4
105:5
119:5
123:18
informed
72:19
initial
46:1
initially
16:1
ink 39:19
inquiries
6:13
inside
22:21
inspection
25:7
86:13
inspections
24:23
25:2
86:24
89:15
Installment
95:11
instance
24:21
51:2
94:18
96:7
institution
15:1
instruction
66:11
insurance
95:13
105:9,16
105:17,18
119:10

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

insured 8:8
intend 6:18
interest
86:20
87:7
95:13
98:12,13
98:15
100:7
interested
17:6
125:12
internal
60:14,18
60:22
83:23
interrog...
97:23
inventory
49:24
investor
11:4
58:20
60:6,7
69:14
97:9,16
investors
12:12
13:5 19:8
39:16
invoice
24:2,15
25:10
83:15,24
85:10,11
85:12,17
88:15,18
89:11
101:18
102:8,9
102:20
invoices
24:12
27:14,18
83:23
85:2,12

85:15
86:7,9
87:14
103:2
106:4
involved
28:3 30:5
62:20
involvement
10:23
irrelevant
101:2,3
Irwin
113:11,12
Israel
29:17,22
Israel's
30:3
issue 72:24
88:3
97:22
123:17
issues
16:15
74:16
88:1
112:3
items 29:2
J
J 46:22
48:1
jacket 42:1
51:7 82:3
106:16,20
106:23
107:1,5,9
Jacob
113:14,15
James
113:11,12
January
60:12
68:18,18
68:19,19
68:20,20

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 177 of 253 PageID 2866

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
138
69:11
72:8
Jason 48:1
Jeffrey
120:22
Jersey
115:10
job 21:17
29:20
30:3
55:21,23
jobs 15:1,3
Johnson
114:4,5
Jorie 1:14
1:20 4:5
Judge 1:3
4:12
July 1:7
4:4 66:4
66:5
117:21
126:2
June 14:11
15:13,15
16:14,16
16:18
37:7 66:5
69:16
99:16
122:17
K
K 100:7
Kane 76:24
keep 10:6
22:4 24:2
27:20
34:18
95:2,18
106:24
107:7
118:10
keeping
40:2
kept 16:10

22:8 23:3
24:15
37:1 51:4
81:23
82:1,2,5
key 99:23
kill 99:3
kind 8:6
21:1
51:14
52:15
93:24
97:2
101:2
103:20
kindly
118:11
kinds 123:4
King 120:24
121:1
knew 58:9
69:18
know 5:2
6:8 9:1,8
10:23
11:8
12:10
13:4,14
18:5,19
20:22
21:6,16
21:16
25:5
26:21
27:11
30:16
32:12,15
32:18
33:2 34:9
34:13
35:23
36:2 41:4
42:21
43:20
45:16,19
45:24

48:9
49:16,23
52:5,15
52:19,21
56:2,6,9
56:12,19
56:24
57:1,3,3
57:5,20
57:20,22
58:12,14
59:4,14
61:10,15
62:21
64:17
68:11,13
72:4
75:15
77:22,22
77:24
78:3,4,7
79:1,2,16
79:16
80:17
81:18
85:6,18
87:8,21
88:1
93:10
94:8
97:20
98:8
99:14
104:24
106:14
109:3,11
109:12
113:1,5
114:20
115:14,20
116:15,23
118:6
120:17,19
121:2
123:20
knowing

71:7
knowledge
31:10
41:4
45:13
46:3,4,9
46:14
48:9 56:2
57:16,20
58:3 65:3
116:1,24
117:5,12
122:4
knowledg...
6:15
known 45:10
56:8,16
72:18
knows 56:10
L
L 44:21
46:8,22
labeled
38:7
40:18
83:20,23
105:21,24
labeling
37:19
40:3
LAC 10:17
10:20
Lake 18:20
30:22
115:22,23
116:8
123:19
late 26:2,2
26:4,10
83:14
98:18
105:20,24
106:1
law 1:19
16:11

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

52:14
53:4,7
63:24
65:8,14
66:12,17
67:2,19
71:9
75:15
lead 45:15
107:17
lease 20:19
leave 14:10
14:21
27:23
110:24
111:14
leaves
107:2
left 14:20
44:11
80:8,12
103:7
111:3
113:5,9
120:20
Legacy 13:9
13:11,19
18:24
19:2,6,17
20:12,13
20:14
123:10
legal 8:20
16:15
55:16
72:16
73:7 99:9
104:14
lender
17:23
45:1
79:23
lenders
63:19
80:13
let's 7:15

22:15
24:22
26:16
27:23
30:10
36:14,17
40:1 41:8
42:15
43:24
55:10
56:12
58:8
59:11
72:1,8
77:14
78:5
84:12
85:19
90:1
91:12
97:5
108:7
letter 7:4
23:5
61:16
67:19,24
69:6,10
letters
22:8,9,18
23:6,11
62:21
115:21
120:16
Leverette
110:17
Lewis 34:4
34:6
License
1:12
125:1,16
licensed
120:14
light 52:16
limiting
44:21
Lindberg

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 178 of 253 PageID 2867

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
139
2:2 34:7
36:24
line 26:15
26:15
59:9 74:9
75:13
96:17
116:3
118:20
126:6
links 110:3
list 6:13
6:17 7:8
23:14
112:4
listed
13:11,12
44:23
lists 47:22
55:13
litigation
112:23
113:21
120:23
121:3
little
14:21
18:23
26:13,15
62:3,11
84:11,11
100:17
123:2
LLC 36:24
44:20
45:1,4,8
45:9,11
48:2
51:18
80:13
LLP 9:9
LMV 12:18
13:8
17:15
LNV 7:12,18
9:9 11:2

11:14
33:14
35:14
36:8,9
38:16,22
38:23
39:19
40:20
47:14
48:6
49:22
50:18
51:12,23
54:11
55:9
58:16,18
60:3,6,23
62:13
69:3,12
69:17
70:3
72:21
73:12,13
75:4,9
77:6,12
77:16
81:2
101:12,16
103:1
109:1,3
115:1
119:17,18
122:10,18
123:7,9
123:12
loan 10:3,5
10:6,17
10:20
12:5,9,12
12:17
17:14
19:16,17
21:3,11
21:22
23:14
26:12

32:19,20
32:23,24
33:7,14
41:18
46:1
48:13
49:9,20
50:20
52:13
53:8
58:17,24
59:5,14
60:2
61:23
62:13
65:2,24
68:2,4
69:7 70:3
71:10,22
72:11,13
73:2
76:13
80:4,5,16
81:1,9
85:1,7,24
86:21
89:23
91:21
92:17
96:16
97:1,10
98:15
102:7,14
102:23
107:4,4
115:11,18
116:4,5
116:20
118:3,4
loans 9:13
9:16
10:24
11:1,4,24
19:4 23:7
25:22
32:9 50:1

50:5,14
58:20
78:16
81:3,10
located
14:1
29:23
115:4
location
123:9
locations
114:21
long 23:17
44:8 56:8
56:16,19
56:23
70:12,24
72:12
longer
15:17
113:4,9
113:22
114:6
look 12:6
26:22
63:8
68:21
80:6,22
82:9,11
90:9
93:11
96:5,17
98:17
100:16
106:7
108:16,22
looked
92:17
98:17
123:4
looking
11:21
22:15,16
22:17
44:3,13
52:3,24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

54:2,3,3
62:11
73:10
86:3
87:18
93:12
95:15
103:19
105:20
looks 27:3
44:15,16
44:20
45:5 48:4
51:11,13
51:19
80:14
81:16
82:13
83:23
85:8,10
86:1,4,8
89:12
91:13,14
98:8
99:20
101:19
103:12
106:9
lose 55:5
96:7
loss 20:15
21:7
110:20
loss-share
19:9,20
20:9
lost 102:11
lot 7:9,11
12:11
13:20
54:4 81:8
96:5
97:19
103:5
lots 89:20
Louis 34:12

LPP 13:9
LPS 17:18
17:19,23
18:9,14
20:10,18
20:24
22:3,11
22:21
23:4 24:6
60:21
83:23
85:10,24
92:4
101:18
104:1
lunch 74:16
M
M 1:12,19
125:1,16
M-A-L-O-...
4:21
Mae 9:14,15
9:18
Mae-type
9:16
Mail 99:11
making
62:20
72:16
112:7
Maloney 1:7
3:3 4:6
4:10,13
4:19 5:13
37:20
40:3,9,15
41:21
42:16,22
51:10
61:21
63:6
70:13
75:2,5,8
77:5,7,11
77:14

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 179 of 253 PageID 2868

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
140
83:20
90:1
91:13
126:2,18
managed
41:9
76:19
management
9:5 21:24
28:15
62:20
83:24
85:11
101:19
manager
51:19
64:15
114:6,10
manila 34:1
38:7
Manual
99:17
March 75:10
79:13
81:16
Marcia 1:4
6:1
mark 42:14
79:21
108:23,24
108:24
marked 5:8
5:13 38:2
40:11
43:2 61:5
63:2,6
74:6,21
82:20
90:4 91:8
marks 109:7
123:2,5
Martin
47:16,18
55:9,10
56:8,12
78:8

107:14
108:19,20
mass 49:23
89:14
master 33:5
42:19
76:11,21
match 83:10
85:5
100:24
106:5
material
97:20
104:18
materials
46:18
matter
107:1,18
matters
18:13
125:4
maze 55:7
Mead 78:1
mean 8:7
9:21
12:24
17:23
19:2,3
25:21
31:23
41:16
52:4 57:2
62:5
78:14
81:2
87:21
94:3
96:13
97:24
104:13
113:18
122:21
meaning
9:15
22:15
30:6,14

30:19
96:14
means 6:9
8:11
19:21
94:13
meant 19:19
92:16
mentioned
8:14 9:5
10:9 12:7
12:19,23
14:17
18:23
20:4
31:21
33:9 47:9
48:21
58:9 83:6
114:8
mentions
61:24
merge 13:10
MERS 36:9
73:12
75:3 77:6
77:16
MGC 5:1
7:14,17
9:3,7,18
11:9,12
11:15,24
12:3,8,16
13:1,8
15:9,10
15:20
28:11,14
29:8 30:1
50:19,22
57:24
58:7
71:21
76:16,17
91:24
97:6,6
100:18

110:23,24
96:3
111:5,23
97:16
114:14,18
113:7
114:19,22 months 5:19
115:1
16:2
119:19
78:22
120:17
79:12,15
122:10
mortgage
Michael
5:1 7:2,2
78:1
7:17 9:7
113:24
9:9 13:2
114:1
14:12
Michelle
15:13,20
34:4,6,12
17:18
minutes 6:7
20:10,18
23:19
20:24
34:24
21:17
108:8
22:3 23:4
mischara...
24:22
78:24
35:16,17
missed
36:4,9
120:21
40:7 45:1
missing
45:4,9,10
36:3
46:5
38:18
50:13
63:10
61:23
88:20
63:12
mitigation
66:2,6
21:7
70:8,9,22
110:20
73:16,23
mixed
74:12,15
120:16
75:2,3,8
Mm-hmm
75:14,19
23:24
75:20,21
89:10
76:2,5,9
money 12:13
77:17
59:6 88:4
78:21
89:20
79:11,12
97:3
79:18
Montgomery
80:11
109:18
99:21,23
month
101:15,16
118:24
101:24
119:1,7
102:14
monthly
103:1,4
86:18
107:21

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

117:21
119:10
mortgages
32:5
58:22
78:11
116:11
117:6
Motion
94:10
move 26:16
42:16
50:7
57:11
60:22
123:15,16
moving
107:7
Mule 18:20
multiple
31:24
58:20
114:21
N
N 3:1
Nagodoches
14:1
name 4:1,6
4:18
15:16,18
33:10
44:20
48:1,6
51:18
114:3
122:9
names 18:23
64:19
110:1,16
112:4,14
112:16,17
120:21
Naperville
2:4
Nautilus

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 180 of 253 PageID 2869

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
141
81:18
40:23
near 86:8
41:24,24
99:9
42:4,8
necessarily
43:7,11
103:2
44:1,8,12
need 21:11
44:22
21:19
47:2,4,6
26:10
47:22
70:16
48:15,19
102:3
49:7,10
needed
51:2,6,7
21:21
51:8 55:8
68:5
63:13
never 32:5
66:2,3
76:3,4
67:11
98:2
69:15
123:3
70:11,17
new 39:15
70:20
49:10
75:15
107:9
77:18
115:10
78:1,12
116:20
78:22
normal
79:7,11
52:19
80:10
71:13
82:3,4,5
normally
98:10,11
52:21
101:8
53:18
102:7,14
63:20
102:23
72:1
106:10,11
93:20
106:14,16
94:2,22
106:20,23
108:1,4
107:1,2,5
NORTHERN
107:8,8,9
1:1
107:11,12
Nos 74:21
107:22
note 26:9,9
122:14,16
26:11
122:17
33:4,18
123:14
33:22
noted 126:3
36:21,21
notes 7:1,3
36:23
21:5 22:7
37:11
24:10
38:8,17
31:21,23
39:2,6,22
32:2 42:2
40:7,20
43:7 49:4

49:12
112:14
50:7,8
objected
60:20
103:13
63:20
objection
76:8
11:22
104:1,2
14:16
104:16
17:20
105:1
18:4 20:5
108:2
20:21
116:11
21:2
117:6
22:12
122:11
30:7
notice 4:11
42:10
5:15 52:2
46:11
60:11,11
48:22
94:7
49:14
noticed
52:24
52:17
55:16,22
Notifica...
56:5,9
61:22
57:8,17
notify
57:21
69:11
59:8 65:4
72:20
65:19
number 9:14
67:4,11
23:14
68:8
42:20
72:16
52:13
75:16
67:21
77:19,20
80:4,5
78:24
93:14
81:13
numbered
87:22
100:1
97:11
numbers
104:13,21
26:23
105:2,11
53:8
107:6,16
89:19
108:3
118:6
109:15,20
109:24
O
110:18
Oak 1:14,21
111:1,9
Oakbrook
111:15
4:5
112:7,11
oath 53:3
112:17
object
114:15
75:13
116:13
88:10
117:7,14

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

117:23
118:11,15
119:2,23
120:4
121:14
objections
104:14
obvious
17:9
obviously
17:6
18:11
24:1 25:8
28:3
49:11
51:14
62:6
occupied
88:23
occur 4:11
occurred
58:23
94:5
October
30:15
of'11 91:15
offer 52:11
office
29:23
52:12
57:7
69:16
76:24
115:5
117:22
officer
6:12
44:21
offices
115:1
Oh 58:17
okay 5:2,12
6:4 7:8
7:12,17
7:19 9:3
9:19,23

10:14
11:13
12:3,10
12:22
13:23
15:11
16:2,18
16:24
17:11
22:17
23:2 24:6
25:3,4
27:20,23
28:15,24
29:2,16
31:17,20
32:22
34:14
37:10,20
38:18
39:7,21
39:23
40:17
41:4,11
41:19
42:6,23
42:24
43:14
44:2 45:3
46:8 47:9
47:19
48:4,14
52:4,17
54:2,3
55:13
58:12
59:13,21
61:1,3,9
61:17,24
62:3,8,17
62:24
63:14
64:3
66:11
68:24
69:1 70:5

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 181 of 253 PageID 2870

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
142
72:9,24
73:23
74:17
75:1,21
75:24
77:4,16
78:5,10
80:8
83:18,19
85:11,19
85:22
87:4,14
89:9 90:1
91:12
93:7 94:6
99:13
102:16
103:9,13
106:13
108:9
on-site
86:15
once 27:7
71:8 72:2
ones 9:11
10:14,18
20:9,12
27:7
53:19
64:5
100:21
101:20,20
102:8
open 37:4
opened 21:8
operations
19:1
21:22
28:22
31:2
opposite
57:12
order 6:23
51:12,17
63:24
68:5

89:14
94:10,11
ordered
4:11
original
7:1 10:5
10:6
27:12
33:4,7,18
33:22,23
35:19,21
35:24
36:2,4,7
36:21,23
37:11
38:8,13
38:17,20
39:24
40:2,7,16
41:17,24
43:9,11
44:1,4,8
44:22,23
45:1 49:7
49:12,15
49:20
50:7,8,20
50:21
51:6,8,24
52:1 53:1
53:17
54:3,4,5
55:3 61:2
61:9,11
68:17,17
69:15
70:16,16
73:17,23
75:19,20
75:21
76:1,5,9
76:12,17
77:8
79:22
80:11,16
81:21

82:3,9
83:21
107:9,12
109:5
122:14,16
originally
7:12
44:16
45:4 48:5
originals
35:4,6
42:3
109:6
originated
90:21
91:21
origination
27:7
81:21
90:23
orignal
36:7
outcome
125:12
outlining
122:9
outside
20:15
overnight
116:7
owed 64:23
65:13,15
67:15,20
68:3
owing 112:2
owned 7:21
9:15,18
17:14,15
19:4,7
owner 12:17
29:1,2
71:22
122:17
owners 20:9
107:9
ownership

47:2,3
58:17
60:3,11
60:15
62:7
69:18
70:4
123:12
owns 20:18
97:10
P
P.O 123:20
page 3:2
19:20
37:4
44:12
47:4
54:17,17
54:23
68:16,21
69:2 70:7
73:18
84:3,6,14
84:21
85:8,23
87:19
89:9
99:10,24
100:1,8
103:12
108:16,17
126:6
pages 44:8
70:24
84:4
100:15
108:18,22
paid 25:9
25:19
95:5,8
100:7
107:4,11
107:11
paper 34:15
42:7,18

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

55:7
paragraph
62:1
parent 9:6
Parkway
4:23 13:7
13:12,16
13:18
115:5
123:10
part 8:9
20:13
23:20,22
24:6,7
37:17,17
42:11
52:19
53:4 54:9
55:23
58:15
68:17
71:6,13
72:5
89:16
95:22
98:7 99:9
99:18,22
104:1,15
104:18
particular
22:5
40:22
58:24
68:1 81:3
89:13
97:3
parties
7:22
117:10,12
125:11,12
parts 70:6
party 6:13
107:22
passed 16:8
Paul 1:19
26:18

73:14
87:22
88:10
90:16
pay 12:11
23:22,23
24:2
26:14,20
51:11,17
99:20
102:7,16
payee 44:22
44:23
99:12,15
100:9
paying
24:16
60:23
77:12
payment 7:3
12:5,9
21:4 22:7
24:9,10
26:2
91:20,23
95:11
96:4,9,9
96:19
99:24
100:12,19
100:24
101:1
102:17,22
116:2
payments
67:21
87:5
93:18
95:9 96:3
96:19,22
97:7,8
105:16
114:19,24
115:6,9
115:12,15
115:17

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 182 of 253 PageID 2871

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
143
116:8
123:18,20
PDF 53:12
penalty
100:7
PENNY 1:20
people
12:12
62:9
63:19
71:10
83:6
109:10
110:4,4
111:20
percent
9:21
26:10
percentage
9:19
Perfect
74:13
period
25:20
30:8
93:19
98:13
permissible
107:18
person 6:15
6:15 25:8
31:12
32:10
64:13,14
77:17,18
78:2 87:9
122:3
personal
125:6
personally
56:10
perspective
8:21
pertaining
1:11 88:1
119:5

petition
70:21
93:22
94:1,17
94:20,21
94:23
95:5,8,10
Pfizer
120:3
phonetic
113:2,14
phrasing
117:4,18
physical
123:11
picked
72:13
87:20
pictures
87:10
88:5 89:4
piece 42:7
42:17
pink 83:17
place 24:9
25:8
45:21
46:1,2
78:10
116:10,20
116:23
125:9
placed
45:19
48:10
54:12
placing
53:4
plan 63:11
74:16
98:5
plane 16:15
Plano 4:23
plans 7:5
plat 22:3
platform

17:18
18:2
20:18,24
22:4,11
23:1,3,4
24:6,7
pleadings
7:5
please 4:18
4:20 8:18
29:14
61:20
pledged
81:1,4,11
81:12
POA 55:19
POC 27:16
64:6
82:12
point 8:12
12:16
14:22
25:23
26:12
50:22
56:15
66:6
69:13,15
72:15
104:20
118:3
121:10
pointed
108:24
123:19
pointing
91:4
98:22
policy 53:7
portfolio
19:1,2,7
19:8
20:14
50:15
81:4
89:15,22

114:6
portfolios
19:6
portion
61:13
95:19
position
28:24
109:14
positions
15:8
109:11
possession
26:21
35:20
106:19
108:14
possible
69:8
post 51:18
58:7
93:22
94:1,17
94:20,21
94:23
95:5,8,10
postcards
112:16
potentially
65:20
97:22
116:14
122:5
pre-peti...
93:21
94:1,17
preparation
62:4
66:17
99:6
prepare
6:23
57:14
62:9
63:24
67:2,10

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

67:23
68:23
83:3,7
106:13
prepared
6:20 71:8
72:3 93:7
100:22
prepares
58:2
present
1:18 2:1
15:10
presented
103:3
president
28:4,7,20
28:21,22
31:2
55:11,14
56:23
57:2,6
113:12,15
presiden...
28:18
presidents
28:13,19
presume
34:11
presupposes
116:14
pretty 28:9
108:8
previous
125:3
previously
4:11 10:9
82:14
92:15
122:8,20
primarily
55:21
principal
95:13
98:8,14
print 25:15

41:15
42:19
104:9,23
105:6
printed
51:21
104:2
prior 5:21
58:19
59:5,23
71:11
73:1
111:3,4
120:11
Priority
34:3
privileged
65:4,6,20
105:4
probably
26:24
32:4 37:1
78:7 86:5
98:4
probation
121:18,19
problem
35:12
42:12
71:17
73:21
96:12,13
problems
16:3
procedure
1:10 4:9
6:8 49:9
49:13,17
62:12,14
63:22
64:1,3,4
116:23
procedures
78:19
116:10,16
116:20

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 183 of 253 PageID 2872

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
144
proceeding
117:24
119:6
proceedings
118:19
125:7
process
35:11
52:12,20
71:6,7,13
84:13,19
Processing
17:23
processor
51:20
produce
104:21,23
produced
102:9
103:16
104:18
product
65:21
Production
102:5,14
program
20:19
programmed
26:5
promise
39:22
40:2 70:9
promised
79:18
Promissory
47:6
proof 25:4
37:16
38:19,24
44:4 52:9
54:18,19
62:24
63:7,23
66:9,18
67:2,9,10
67:23

68:5,16
68:16
70:2,5,7
70:22
71:6,8,16
72:2 84:1
84:2,4
99:10
118:19
122:13
properties
24:23
85:16
87:3
property
10:10
24:23
25:2,7,9
86:13,14
86:16
87:1,6,13
88:6
89:14
protect
86:20
protection
49:11
provided
38:13
65:17,18
66:16
71:3
76:23
92:17
pull 22:19
23:14
25:22
26:14
80:6
pulled 39:1
39:2
pulling
36:6
purchase
10:24
33:3

48:21
58:15
59:2
purchased
32:24
33:14
48:19
49:10
50:5,14
59:6
117:12
purchaser
49:21
purpose
7:10
54:23
66:21
67:3,6
93:14
purposes
27:1 37:2
91:1
121:15
pursuant
1:9 4:10
6:6,7
put 23:13
27:14
33:8
41:18
43:22
44:16,16
48:6 50:7
67:9
91:19
92:10
93:17
Q
qualified
1:13
quality
29:21
question
17:21
28:2,12

41:12
57:10
59:9,12
62:10
64:13
70:15,18
72:6,7,17
73:4,6,9
75:24
78:18
84:10
101:1
105:19
106:21,24
107:17
108:23
116:13,15
116:17,18
117:18
118:17
121:12
questioning
74:9
75:13
questions
7:11
61:12
63:21
70:10
85:20
97:19,21
98:5
103:10
120:6,20
121:6
123:1
quick 70:17
70:17
108:23
quickly
63:9
108:8
quite 10:22
25:4
56:22
86:6

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

R
random
87:19,20
Randy
110:17
range 86:7
rate 98:10
read 6:17
46:21,23
92:19
101:4
126:2
readable
92:10
reading
112:3
ready 29:9
real 23:23
63:9
70:17,17
reality
118:12
realize
91:4
really 8:19
8:22
14:19
41:22
42:7 73:3
75:24
101:1
106:20,23
108:23
reason 11:1
67:1,14
67:18
78:11
98:9
104:4
reasons
17:9
recall 6:3
7:6 59:20
109:17
111:2
113:7

115:19
123:21
receipt
76:12
receive
33:4
81:15
received
33:7
43:10,13
48:16
49:7,10
50:4,11
76:3,4,5
96:20
97:14
110:14
receiving
76:9 87:5
Recess
79:19
reclarify
102:10
reconcil...
91:20
92:13
record 4:8
26:22
34:1
35:11
36:14,16
36:17,18
36:19,22
40:7
46:21
47:12
49:8
50:10
52:7 75:1
75:12,16
88:11,11
97:17
98:22
108:9,10
108:13
112:8

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 184 of 253 PageID 2873

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
145
120:4,6
121:5,6
122:20
125:7
recorded
36:8
49:24
75:5,10
79:12
89:15
Recorder
76:24
recordke...
122:11
records
22:6
76:18
recourse
51:17
red 80:3
redact
52:14
53:8,16
redaction
52:12
redirect
121:11,23
123:23
redirected
96:2
reduced
44:5
125:6
Reference
93:13
references
62:8
referencing
94:8
referring
47:11
49:6
60:24
79:2
99:21
reflect 4:8

reflective
98:20
regarding
7:11
26:20
43:6,7
65:2
96:16
regards 5:5
21:4 43:9
64:5
74:10
78:19
95:10
97:1
122:19
Registra...
75:4
regular
29:5
105:10,17
105:18
related
22:5
71:22
88:3
relates
84:3
relation...
7:16 8:13
9:12,23
11:24
relative
125:10,11
releases
37:9
relevance
14:16
20:5,21
48:22
49:14
55:22
56:5 57:8
57:21
87:23
97:11

107:6,16
108:3
109:15,20
109:24
110:18
111:1,9
111:15
112:11
117:7,14
117:23
118:15
119:23
relevancy
21:2
77:20
104:15
relevant
93:17
119:5
reliance
54:22
Relief
94:10,11
remaining
97:20
remember
30:15
120:9
remit 97:15
remove
37:12
removing
34:22
repeat
62:10
rephrase
116:19
replaces
92:22
report
25:20,21
87:10,15
87:16
88:8,20
88:21
report-g...

25:24
reported
88:6 89:7
125:6
reporter
4:1 40:4
40:6
125:1
Reporters
4:2
reporting
22:1
126:6
represent
18:13
63:16
100:6
request
102:4,13
103:11,12
104:11
requesting
23:16
require
26:3
reserve
81:5,6
124:1
residential
10:19
12:23
13:1
15:19,22
17:4,7
32:24
44:17
45:7,11
46:5 48:2
48:19
51:17
53:19,23
respond
99:10
Response
99:1
responsi...

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

29:3
responsi...
32:11
responsible
30:6,16
32:19
restate
71:24
Results
85:24
review 6:23
50:3
104:17
105:1
reviewed
6:4 7:1,1
7:3,6
31:21
46:19
71:9,11
71:17,18
71:20
72:2,7,15
106:16
RFC 38:15
38:22
right 12:14
12:20,21
17:8,10
23:23
24:11
36:6
43:16,22
46:1 52:9
53:2
56:20,21
61:10
72:8
74:13
80:8,9
81:24
83:18
84:1,7,9
84:21
88:19
91:3

98:17
100:5
101:5,6,8
103:22
105:3
108:24
117:4
Road 2:3
4:3
Rob 112:10
112:20
room 43:16
rooms 82:2
Rule 1:6
4:9
Rules 1:10
4:9 6:8
running
95:2
121:9
S
S 3:7 4:3
safe 42:2,5
49:12
safeguard
85:16,19
85:23
89:2,8
SAITH 124:3
sake 36:19
97:21
104:15
Sale 61:22
sales 33:3
San 81:1
saw 5:19
106:16
Saxon 14:12
15:13
saying 8:9
11:18
19:14
38:11
43:18
47:23

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 185 of 253 PageID 2874

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
146
53:17
65:8
67:19
73:1
100:8,14
says 12:16
26:9,11
34:2,4
41:10,12
41:15,15
42:18
44:17
46:22
51:11,12
80:24
81:1,11
85:24
87:19
88:15,16
95:5
98:18
99:21
100:1
104:11
105:3,5
scan 22:10
scanned
23:8
24:13
50:6
81:19
scanning
22:21
23:9
scheduled
32:17
scope
104:12
Scott 64:18
64:21
114:9,11
screens
39:1
91:24
second 7:9
26:22

30:12,14
31:1
32:15
36:15,18
47:1,13
47:14
51:13
52:1
59:12
72:1
86:23
92:14
97:22
108:16,17
Seconds
23:19
section
89:24
sections
83:24
84:2
secured
88:7,9
security
86:20
87:7
see 5:18
12:6 25:4
25:22
28:3 41:8
52:1 69:3
70:16,17
71:17
83:9
87:11,12
88:15
89:19
98:7
100:6
102:22
104:17
108:15
seeing 5:21
seen 5:16
7:9 8:2
8:10

39:10
46:17
63:15
82:14
98:2 99:4
108:5
109:7
123:3
segregated
19:10
select
23:15
sell 107:4
seller
49:20
semantics
73:7
send 25:10
25:10
51:2
64:22
67:8,14
67:18
107:12
115:6
senior 28:4
28:13,20
sense 101:7
sent 22:18
23:7 24:3
37:1
38:24
39:5
49:20,23
51:9
61:16
62:8,22
63:24
68:2
106:17
116:8
sentence
117:3
separate
15:17
22:10

27:7 39:3
40:2 42:1
105:2
separately
82:5
September
96:21
series 60:8
101:19
112:16
serve 21:1
served
121:18
server
84:19
service 9:3
15:14,18
21:11
60:11
63:20
99:11
116:6
120:11
serviced
9:18
20:11
32:21
servicer
7:17 10:3
12:1
servicers
24:22
services
9:7 17:23
18:11
80:13
servicing
7:3,14
9:13
11:11,13
11:14,19
11:24
12:11
17:1
21:22
31:21

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

60:20
119:13
set 13:5
16:14
26:4,8
97:22
121:22
125:13
share 17:3
123:7,9
shared
19:13
Shearhart
120:22
shed 52:16
sheet 27:2
86:23
92:2,8
103:14,20
103:22
122:19
126:1
sheets
106:17
Shift 6:1
shifted
76:18
shipping
49:23
shoes 85:17
short 95:19
Shorthand
125:1
show 5:13
24:10
45:20
60:14,19
95:8
showed
105:14
106:17
123:2
showing
63:6
93:18
shown 37:13

96:10
123:10
shows 23:5
24:3
27:16
33:6 41:7
43:11
51:1,9
60:8,13
81:15
89:24
side 10:19
12:23
13:1,5
15:19
17:4,4,7
32:6 80:4
80:8,9,12
80:19
112:24
114:5
sides 57:12
sign 55:19
55:21
56:3,4
107:15
118:14,18
signature
44:12
46:8,15
51:24
54:5
108:22
109:1
signed
44:21
48:1
68:19
78:1,2,7
108:18
signing
44:21
signs 37:6
similar
43:5
simultan...

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 186 of 253 PageID 2875

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
147
58:22
78:17
single 87:1
Sir 4:18
site 51:7
sitting
31:9
sixth 54:17
54:23
slue 116:14
small 9:14
9:22
software
17:18
18:9
25:18
26:1
sold 20:19
107:8
somebody
12:9
38:24
39:4
sorry 16:9
26:18
30:3,5
36:11
61:2,15
61:18
62:10
64:8
67:17
69:20
83:11,14
102:10
110:12
114:16
sort 11:17
11:20
12:15
17:2 27:3
49:9 51:3
58:15
59:1
65:18
sound 12:19

32:6 84:1
sounded
21:19
sounds 9:5
12:21
Sowerman
113:1,3
speak
104:14
speaking
87:19
spearheaded
62:19
special
28:7
specialized
20:3
specific
21:15
31:12
32:10
79:3
96:16
107:22
108:5
110:5
112:17
122:3,4
122:14,21
specific...
12:7 32:1
75:15
specifics
65:10
specified
125:9
specify
22:13
30:7 59:8
71:18
105:12
116:3
119:15
speculation
46:11
57:18

67:4,5
77:19
spell 4:20
29:14
spent 16:24
split 15:21
spot 123:14
spread 27:2
86:23
92:2,8
103:14,20
103:22
staff 91:20
92:7
stagnant
115:18
stamp 44:15
44:17
48:6,10
51:13,14
51:16,23
54:11
68:22
107:11
stamps 48:5
48:11
standard
92:8
standing
112:3
stands 28:5
staple
34:22
37:12
start 7:15
14:8
55:10
56:12
83:17,17
91:2
98:13
started
14:10,23
50:12
56:17
starting

90:7
starts
85:24
90:17,17
91:14,14
96:12,13
state 1:13
4:18 14:1
125:1
126:19
stated
49:11
88:18
statement
6:12 37:4
72:17
80:12
statements
24:12
States 1:1
1:10
stay 123:14
stays 107:1
stenogra...
125:6
Steven
13:24
113:20
sticker
34:2,4,5
stipulate
112:13
stop 42:15
43:23
stoppages
42:15
street
87:12
streets
13:10
Strickler
1:12 4:1
125:1,16
strike
25:17
113:1

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

114:18
116:18
117:11,17
structure
10:13
stuff 27:12
83:1 96:6
styled
39:17
submitted
71:12
subscribed
126:20
subseque...
27:8
subserviced
115:12
116:5
subservicer
18:16,17
19:11
64:9
100:18
115:8
subservi...
18:24
19:10
subsidia...
117:1,11
sued 117:1
117:2,6
117:10,12
sufficie...
42:21
sufficing
103:15
suggest
35:3
Suite 1:14
1:21 2:3
SULAIMAN
1:19
summary
27:16
82:12
85:9

Suppleme...
93:1
suppleme...
102:18
Supplements
92:24
supply
114:12
supposed
39:17
47:23
59:17,22
118:4
sure 10:22
19:19
25:6,9
35:2
47:22
55:4,7
60:1
61:20
62:15
63:15
86:14,15
87:6
91:19
93:11
103:24
105:7
106:18
112:15
116:11
suspect
80:16
suspense
95:20,23
95:24
96:1,17
96:20
97:1
SVP 28:5
112:24
113:4,8
114:1
Swift 1:4,4
5:5,23

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 187 of 253 PageID 2876

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
148
6:2
Swift/A
34:10
Swifts 12:9
Swifts'
22:16,17
30:6
31:11
32:19
sworn 4:7
4:15
125:4
126:20
system 17:3
17:5,13
18:8 21:5
21:23
22:8,10
22:10,21
22:22
23:7,9,10
23:13,22
24:14
25:18
26:5 33:5
39:4
43:12
49:8 50:9
53:13
60:19,22
75:4 76:8
76:11,14
76:18
78:10
80:6
88:22
89:2 94:5
99:18
106:10,12
systems
17:17
T
T 1:4 3:7
tab 84:20
tabs 85:4

take 6:11
21:14
23:18
24:9
26:22
27:15
28:18
32:14
43:24
63:8 64:9
70:18
72:2
74:10,12
79:18
87:10
97:5
108:7
taken 1:14
4:10
19:21
37:14,15
79:19
125:9
126:2
takes 21:10
21:18,24
25:7
28:17,19
62:14
talk 6:18
6:20
39:22
70:9 73:7
74:14,15
77:14
92:15
talked 6:1
10:15
20:3
32:13,14
32:14
39:2 40:5
62:6
73:24,24
84:10,11
110:4,13

110:14
talking
16:24
18:14
27:13
42:22
44:5 45:3
47:13,17
70:12
71:21
84:12
87:24
88:11
112:1
121:6,7
talks 11:23
99:11
taxes 23:23
23:23
95:13
Taylor
109:23
110:6
tech 26:5
technically
15:11
17:14
95:12
tell 8:4
25:18
32:2 38:9
40:19
47:10,10
61:21
62:3
68:20
73:19
telling
7:15 42:6
60:4
104:22
tells
106:10
templates
21:8
terms 11:17

11:20
17:1,17
26:9 47:2
47:3
49:10
98:11
106:11
testified
4:15
33:13
54:16,18
56:10
79:3,5
122:8
testify
52:16
53:7
57:18
125:4
testimony
79:1
121:15
125:7
Texas 4:23
14:1
29:23
30:19
31:4
43:18
Thank 16:13
91:4
96:23
thing 20:8
23:17,20
35:2 47:1
51:1,21
53:23
77:4
80:24
things 17:2
22:1
26:16
27:24
28:18,20
29:3
46:22

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

51:23
63:21
80:12
92:18
103:5,7
103:19
116:16
think 7:6
8:24
21:21
28:8
31:23
37:3,5,8
40:8
42:11,20
47:14
48:17
51:8,16
56:20
58:9
63:12
64:19
72:5,9
73:24
78:6
79:17
82:24
83:19
84:14,16
84:20
86:2 91:3
97:15
98:3,12
99:16
100:4,9
103:5
105:14
110:6
111:3
121:14
thinking
61:15
118:23
Thomas
111:5,7
111:11

thought
90:10
threaten
119:4
three 16:7
31:6
80:20
ticket
16:16
tied 10:18
27:18
Tim 109:23
110:6
time 4:4
15:4
16:24
25:1
26:12
27:11
30:7,10
30:11
32:16
39:11
46:1
48:12
50:12
56:22
59:5,8
63:17
66:6
67:17
69:10,13
69:15,19
70:12
71:23
73:1,5,7
76:16,17
78:14
79:9,10
82:10
85:15
93:19
96:19,24
97:22
101:5
104:12

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 188 of 253 PageID 2877

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
149
116:3
118:20
120:9
122:13,17
125:9
times 24:22
title
112:22,23
today 4:12
5:2 6:18
6:23 31:9
31:22
75:18
77:9
82:14
83:21
102:9
104:5
106:14
114:8
told 7:13
46:22
63:16
70:2 73:2
106:15
Tom 109:18
top 37:18
41:9
64:20
68:21
89:24
93:12
99:22
100:1,16
topics 6:17
6:21
13:20
total 65:23
89:16
95:2,18
totally
17:5
touch 34:23
123:2
touched
97:2

123:17
track 25:18
42:19
50:9
76:11,21
95:19
106:24
118:12
119:5
tracking
33:5
training
53:9
99:17
transaction
24:8,9
25:12
90:16
94:3,5
97:3,13
100:9
transact...
22:7
99:12,16
transcript
124:2
125:5
126:2,3
TRANSCRI...
126:6
transfer
58:23
59:7,17
60:6,9,12
60:14
61:23
62:7,13
62:19
72:11,21
120:12
transferred
58:17,20
59:15
60:18
69:7 70:4
73:3

88:22
123:12
transmitted
23:6 67:1
transmit...
89:4
transported
89:2
travel
16:21
trees 99:3
trouble
55:8
true 8:5
23:20
24:21
44:6 48:2
62:1
116:21
125:7
126:3
trustee
94:24
Trustees
93:13
truth 125:4
try 35:3
74:11
107:7
trying 7:6
12:8
14:22
20:7
23:21
32:6
43:21
47:20,21
53:6,9,14
53:15
57:3
71:24
72:5
80:23
81:14
83:10,12
92:11,21

94:2
103:8
104:13
turn 99:24
two 7:16
8:13
13:10
19:6 27:7
34:23
36:12
38:21
48:4
70:24
73:11
78:22
79:12,15
83:6 84:4
84:5,6,7
90:8,9
91:5 93:5
96:18
106:7
108:17
111:16
121:18
type 15:7
25:11
28:18
29:3 32:8
43:6
49:23
51:20
53:23
89:1
typed 51:14
51:19,20
51:22
types 15:1
15:3
109:7
typewriting
125:6
typical
76:6
77:16
118:24,24

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

typically
52:14
86:24
94:24
U
U.S.A 8:3
8:10 9:10
12:18
17:14
35:15
36:8
40:21
58:18
60:7,23
70:4
72:22
73:13
75:10
77:12
103:2
umbrella
8:16,24
10:4
unaware
107:19
underneath
8:16,24
10:4,12
understand
8:18,20
12:8
17:13,21
19:20
20:7
23:21
45:5,5
59:21
83:12
94:2 96:5
98:3
understa...
53:22
understood
16:3,5
unduly

103:15
104:12
105:5
United 1:1
1:10
University
14:1
unusual
14:21
use 17:19
18:2,3,12
92:8
99:18
101:4
120:3
uses 17:5
usually
8:11
19:21
63:19
V
vacant 88:7
88:8,16
88:17,23
vacated
86:14,16
87:6,13
vague 11:22
17:20
21:2
114:15
valid 47:6
47:7,8
101:11
value 54:20
various
18:13
118:6
vault 50:8
51:7
81:24
82:2
Vecchio
48:1
vendor 89:6

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 189 of 253 PageID 2878

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
150
verified
106:18
verify
88:16
116:10,21
version
26:23
vice 28:4,7
28:13,18
28:19,20
28:21,21
31:2
55:11,14
56:23
57:2,6
visible
86:16
87:11
visual
86:15
VP 110:20

97:20
99:2,2,8
103:24
104:16
109:11
112:13
114:9
118:10
119:4
wanted
23:11
30:24
34:9
61:17
69:21
wants 25:9
wasn't
85:14
88:16
104:6
123:13
watch 35:11
W
way 14:9
W 2:3
24:4
W-H-I-T-...
26:24
29:15
37:12
waiting
46:15,18
98:1
72:6 84:8
walk 119:4
84:23
want 9:8
86:8 87:7
14:6 24:2
87:8
24:2
103:6
26:21
114:8
27:15,15
117:4,18
34:14,17
ways 36:13
34:18,19
we're 19:19
36:18
26:13,14
37:12
39:21
42:11,14
40:3
43:20
42:21
49:16
47:1,2,3
55:5 60:1
47:14,17
63:8,14
74:1
64:12
82:11,24
87:6 91:2
84:12
96:6
88:20

97:24
98:1
112:1
117:17
119:3
we've 119:4
website
110:3
week 56:4
weeks 16:7
Wendy 1:12
4:1 125:1
125:16
went 16:7
36:18,22
69:11
76:24
77:15
88:5
96:20
100:4
101:5
106:13
weren't
26:21
Wheaton 4:3
WHEREOF
125:13
Whiteley
29:13
83:5 93:9
wholly 19:7
withdraw
69:22
witness 1:9
3:2 4:7
4:14 5:20
6:14
11:23
20:22
21:3
36:11
46:12
55:18,23
56:6
57:22

65:22
67:12
72:18
90:8
97:12
107:8,19
108:4
109:17,21
110:19
111:2,16
112:12
114:16
115:23
117:8,16
118:1
119:7
120:1,7
121:17,21
125:3,3
125:13
wondering
21:17
78:3
79:14
80:15
word 51:20
93:2
work 13:1
14:24
15:11
25:10
57:24
63:18
65:20
109:10
112:20
120:21
122:5
worked
14:12
15:9 32:5
32:5
56:19
58:2
109:14
111:11

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

working
14:18,23
50:12
78:15
works 58:1
109:18
Worth 14:12
wouldn't
32:2 51:5
55:14
60:21
67:12
72:12
85:13
write 12:17
writes 12:4
writing
87:17
written
18:8,9
34:10
wrong 8:19
41:19
72:14
84:20
X
X 3:1,7
44:4,6
XLS 27:2
103:20
Y
yeah 25:21
27:21
31:13
46:24
49:18
57:5
59:24
81:6 88:5
90:23
91:12
93:16
94:21
99:23

100:3
110:11
113:19
year 14:11
20:16
56:4
59:23
72:9
113:6,23
114:2,7
years 98:11
111:17
113:10
121:18
yellow 34:1
84:14,16
Z
Zurich
18:20
30:22
115:22,24
116:9
123:19
0
07 91:2
084-003257
1:12
125:2,16
1
1 3:8 5:8
5:13 69:3
103:12
1-31-07
90:22
91:14
1-31-2007
90:7,17
10 3:13
82:17,18
82:20
83:4,20
86:10,11
87:9

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 190 of 253 PageID 2879

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
151
89:14,23
98:23
101:21
103:3
105:22
106:4
10-17 91:14
10-17-11
90:17
10:00 1:8
10:05 4:4
108 3:4
11 1:7 3:13
4:4 44:6
45:15
90:2,4
91:6,13
91:13
103:20
105:21
126:2
11th 105:14
12 3:14
37:17
91:6,8,13
91:14
98:24
102:19,19
103:21
12-18-2011
89:11
12-21-08
96:17,21
12-23-08
96:21
12-30-2011
100:4
12-35690
1:4
120 2:3
122 3:5
12th 105:14
13 1:5 60:1
93:23
94:9,16
94:19

13th 75:10
14 44:4
15 26:2
15-day
25:19
150 1:14,21
16 26:9
17-1 37:17
17105086
42:20
1771 2:3
17th 81:16
1993 13:24
1999 121:17
1st 59:19
2
2 3:9 37:19
37:20,21
38:2,7
43:8,24
47:5
51:10
52:6,8
53:10
54:8
70:13
103:12
2-14-2005
99:17
2,000 12:10
20 37:7
69:11
2000 14:10
14:23
15:5,6,14
56:18
66:5
2007 14:11
15:13,15
80:15
2008 14:12
15:10,12
15:13,20
33:1,12
33:16

48:16
49:3
50:19
75:5
96:22
117:21
2010 81:16
100:19
111:4
116:6
120:13
2011 37:7
66:5
69:17
86:8
122:17
2012 30:15
34:2
50:20
59:18,23
59:24
60:2,5
62:1
118:23
2013 41:10
41:16
58:11,12
58:13,24
59:16
60:12
69:11
75:10
79:6,13
79:13
2014 1:7
4:4
125:13
126:2,21
20th 60:12
29 60:12
2nd 68:18
68:20,21
3
3 3:9 37:18
40:1,9,11

40:16
41:10,21
42:11
54:17
55:2 58:8
58:11,12
58:13,24
68:16
79:5
103:12,13
103:15
3-13 79:12
3-4 34:2
3,530.35
96:8
30 112:16
30(b)(6)
1:6 4:9
6:8,11
31st 61:24
62:8 69:8
72:12
73:1
3360 115:23
35 96:17
35690 37:17
36 96:17
3684.46
96:19
38 3:9
38,000
89:20
3rd 68:20
72:8
4
4 3:4,10
42:8,11
42:14,17
42:23
43:2
47:13
70:7,7
79:2,7
103:12,19
103:21

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

108:13,17
109:2
122:19
40 3:9
40,000
89:24
40,445
89:12
410 84:13
43 3:10
47,000
89:21
4th 16:18
5
5 3:8,10
48:16
49:3 61:1
61:5,21
69:7
79:13
103:12
5-3 41:15
5-3-2003
78:15
5-3-2013
42:19
53 87:19
54 89:9
5th 16:14
16:16
59:15
125:13
6
6 3:11
62:24
63:2,7
103:13
6-4-2013
86:3
600 4:3
6000 13:9
13:11,18
123:10
60187 4:4

60523 1:21
60563 2:4
61 3:10
628243 80:4
63 3:11
7
7 3:11 74:4
74:6,10
75:3
7-17-07
94:9
7195 4:23
13:6,12
13:16,18
115:5
123:10
7368.92
96:18
74 3:11,12
3:12
75024 4:23
752.50
80:14
8
8 3:12
74:19
75:6 77:5
77:7,15
8-1/2 44:4
44:6
8-9 74:21
83 3:13
9
9 3:12
74:19
75:9
77:11
78:6
86:11
87:9
108:14,17
109:2
9-3 75:5

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 191 of 253 PageID 2880

Bret Maloney
July 11, 2014
152
90 3:13
900 1:14,20
4:5
91 3:14

County Court Reporters, Inc.


630.653.1622

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 192 of 253 PageID 2881

Plaintiffs Exhibit D

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 193 of 253 PageID 2882

Erick J. Hayn ie, OSB No. 9824 2


EHaynie@perkin, coie. om

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992


GRichard @perkLn coie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Tel phone: 503 .727.2000
Fac jmiJe: 503.727.2222
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LNV Corporation

UNITED STATES DI TRICT COURT


DISTRlCT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

LNV ORPORATION, a Nevada


corporation
Plaintiff,

Ca e

o. 3: 14-cv-01836-MO

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE CONNER


IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FORS~ARYJUDGMENT

v.
DENISE SUBRAMANlAM,
Defendant.

1LEGALI26
4 11 478. 1

CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S


MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Perk ins Coie u.r


1120 N.W. Couch treet, Tenth Floor
PorLiand, OR 97209-4 12
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 194 of 253 PageID 2883

I, Michelle Conner, declare as follows:


1.

I am the Senior Vice President of MGC Mortgage, Inc. ("MGC"). MGC is the

loan servicer for LNV Corporation ("LNV"), which is the plaintiff in this lawsuit. LNV and
MGC are affiliated entities with common ownership. I am authorized by LNV and MGC to
make this Declaration and have primary responsibility for the administration of the residential
loan that is the subject of this judicial foreclosure action.
2.

I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter based upon my

personal experience, knowledge of the history of the loan described herein, and my review of
pertinent documents, including the various loan documents that are attached as exhibits hereto.
3.

MGC is a business. I am personally familiar with the asset management practices

and procedures of MGC with regard to the servicing of mortgage loans, including record keeping
as it pertains to custody of notes, mortgages, trust deeds, and other loan documents with respect
to mortgage loans held by entities for whom MGC serves as servicer, including for LNV. MGC
services mortgage loan accounts in the regular course of its business and makes in the regular
course of its business records of the acts, transactions, custody of loan documents, events, and
occurrences regarding and pertaining to the mortgage loans it services. In addition, MGC in
servicing mortgage loan accounts in the regular course of its business utilizes records prepared
by other agents of the holder of the loan documents, such as the custodian of certain loan
documents and prior servicers or holders. Records of such acts, transactions, custody of
documents, events, and occurrences are made at the time of the acts, transactions, events, and
occurrences or within a reasonably prompt time thereafter.
4.

All of the exhibits that are attached hereto are maintained by MGC as business

records in accordance with the procedures set forth in the preceding paragraph, in the ordinary
course of business, or are operative legal documents setting forth the relationship between LNV
as note holder and defendant Denise Subramaniam ("Defendant") as borrower. I am also

2- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S


LEGALI264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP


1120 N.W. Couch SLreel, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 195 of 253 PageID 2884

familiar with the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint, which I understand to be
the operative complaint in this judicial foreclosure action.
5.

I submit this Declaration in support of LNV's motion for summary judgment on

its judicial foreclosure claim. LNV seeks to foreclose a trust deed on the real property known as
Lot 4, Block 2, Devonshire, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, more commonly
known as 13865 SW Walker Road, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (the "Property"). Defendant is the
grantor of the trust deed and is the borrower on a note that is secured by the trust deed.

A.

The Loan to Defendant Subramaniam


6.

On or about February 10, 2004, People's Choice Home Loan, Inc. ("People's

Choice") loaned Defendant $176,000.00 (the "Loan").


7.

The Loan is evidenced by the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $176,000.00,

dated February 10, 2004 and signed by Defendant (the "Note"). Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true
and correct copy of the Note and the subsequent allonges to the Note. The original lender on the
Note is People's Choice, and the borrower is Defendant.
8.

Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Deed of Trust, dated

February 10, 2004, signed by Defendant, and recorded in Washington County, Oregon on
March 1, 2004 as Instrument Number 2004-019937 (the "Trust Deed"). The Trust Deed secures,
among other things, Defendant's repayment of the Note. As the trustor of the Trust Deed,
Defendant granted and conveyed, in trust, the power of sale of the Property. The Trust Deed
provides that People's Choice is the beneficiary.

B.

Transfer of the Note and Trust Deed to Plaintiff


9.

People's Choice transferred the Note to Residential Funding Company, LLC

("RFC") by endorsing the Note to the order of RFC in an allonge and delivering the Note and
allonge to RFC. Ex. 1, p. 6. RFC, in turn, transferred the Note to LNV by endorsing it to the
order of LNV in an allonge and delivering the Note and allonges to LNV. Ex. 1, p. 7. Through
the allonges, LNV became the holder of the Note.
3- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
LEGALI264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11478.1

Perkins Coie

LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor


Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 196 of 253 PageID 2885

10.

On or about March 10, 2008, RFC assigned its beneficial interest in the Trust

Deed to LNV. A true and correct copy of the Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust executed
by RFC ("Trust Assignment") and the Oregon State Recorder's cover sheet for the recordation
thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Trust Assignment was recorded in the official
records of Washington County, Oregon on August 27, 2008 as Instrument Number 2008-073972.
Under the Trust Assignment, LNV is the current beneficiary of the Trust Deed.

C.

Defendant's Default on the Note and Trust Deed


11.

Under the Note, Defendant was required to make monthly payments on the first

day of each month beginning on April 1, 2004. Ex. 1, p. 1. The failure to pay the full amount of
each monthly payment by the due date constituted a default. Ex. 1, p. 3. Furthermore,
Defendant was obligated to pay when due her debt on the Note under Section 1 of the Trust
Deed. Ex. 2, p. 3. The failure to make full and timely payments on the Note was a breach of the
Trust Deed and a default thereon. Ex. 2, p. 13.
12.

Both the Note and Trust Deed provide that the lender may accelerate the

payments on the Note in the event of default by Defendant and require immediate payment in
full of all sums owed under the Note that are secured by the Trust Deed. Ex. 1, p. 3; Ex. 2, p. 13.
13.

Defendant did not pay the full amount of the monthly payment due on April 1,

2007. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a document generated from MGC's
computer systems, showing the status and partial history of the Loan ("Loan Status Report").
The Loan Status Report shows that, as of June 15, 2015, the total amount to pay the Loan in full
will be $324,557.19 and that the current unpaid principal balance is $171,450.72. Ex. 4, p. 1.
14.

In December 2010, MGC mailed a notice of default regarding the Note and Trust

Deed dated December 16, 2010 ("Notice of Default") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of
the Notice of Default is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
15.

In or about May 2012, LNV accelerated the principal payments on the Note and

decided to invoke the power of sale under the Trust Deed. On or about May 24, 2012, Northwest
4- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
LEGALl264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11478.1

Perkins Coie

LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor


Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 5 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 197 of 253 PageID 2886

Trustee Services, Inc. mailed a notice of foreclosure ("Notice of Foreclosure") and the trustee's
notice of sale of the Property ("Notice of Sale") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of the
Notice of Foreclosure and the Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Foreclosure is attached hereto as
Exhibit 6. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Sale and the Affidavit of Mailing Trustee's
Notice of Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
16.

On or about June 4, 2012, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. mailed a second

Trustee's Notice of Sale ("Second Notice of Sale") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of the
Second Notice of Sale and the Affidavit of Mailing Trustee's Notice of Sale to Occupant is
attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
17.

The Second Notice of Sale was also published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

and the Oregon Legal Journal on or about June 28, 2012, July 5, 2012, July 12, 2012, and
July 19, 2012, as evidenced by the affidavits of publication from Marc Caplan and Jody Vinson.
True and correct copies of their affidavits are attached hereto as Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively.
18.

In addition, notice of the trustee's sale was posted on the Property, as evidenced

by the affidavit from Nicolas Ross. A true and correct copy of his affidavit is attached hereto as
Exhibit 11.
19.

The defaults under the Note remain uncured to date. As of the date of this

Declaration, Defendant owes under the Note the sum of $324,557.19 as of June 15, 2015
(assuming no payment made between the date of this Declaration and June 15, 2015), consisting
of principal in the amount of $171,450.72, interest at the rate of 10.625% through June 15, 2015
of $109,768.04, escrow/impound overdraft of $40,211.75, unpaid late charges of $2,687.43, a
recording/assignment fee of $46.00, and a property inspection fee of $393.25. Ex. 4, p. 1.
D.

LNV is exempt from the Oregon Foreclosure A voidance Program


20.

Pursuant to the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program, LNV submitted its

Beneficiary Exemption Affidavit ("Beneficiary Exemption"), as evidenced by the true and


correct copy of the Beneficiary Exemption attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
5- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
LEGAL1264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP


I 120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4 I 28
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 6 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 198 of 253 PageID 2887

2l.

LNV caused Lhe Foreclosure Avoidance Measure Notice to be served on

Defendant when she was served with the summons, Complaint, and Amended Complaint.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the Foreclosure A voidance Measure
Notice.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June

F.20l5.

mL~ ~

Michelle Conner
Senior Vice President
MGC Mortgage, Inc.

6- CONNER DECLARATrON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S


LEGALI 264MOTTON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11478.1

Peakins Coie

LLI'

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor


Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 7 of 7


Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 Page 199 of 253 PageID 2888

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cerLify that I will serve the foregoing DECLAUATION OF MICHELLE CONNER

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUlVlMARY JUDGMENT on Defendant,


Denise Subramaniam at 13865 SW Walker Rd. , Beaverton, OR 97005 by depositing a copy in
Lhe U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope with the United States Postal Service at
Portland, Oregon on June 8, 2015.
DATED: June 8, 20 15

Is/ Gabrielle D. Richards


Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. ll4992
GRichards@ perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

Perkins Coie
PAGE

1-

LEGAL 1264114
78.1

CERTJFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lf'

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor


Ponland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 200 of 253 PageID 2889

Plaintiffs Exhibit E

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 201 of 253 PageID 2890

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 202 of 253 PageID 2891

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 203 of 253 PageID 2892

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 204 of 253 PageID 2893

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 205 of 253 PageID 2894

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 206 of 253 PageID 2895

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 207 of 253 PageID 2896

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 208 of 253 PageID 2897

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 209 of 253 PageID 2898

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 210 of 253 PageID 2899

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 211 of 253 PageID 2900

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 212 of 253 PageID 2901

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 213 of 253 PageID 2902

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 214 of 253 PageID 2903

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 215 of 253 PageID 2904

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 216 of 253 PageID 2905

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 217 of 253 PageID 2906

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 218 of 253 PageID 2907

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 219 of 253 PageID 2908

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 220 of 253 PageID 2909

Case 3:12-cv-00468 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 80

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 221 of 253 PageID 2910

Case 3:12-cv-00468 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 81

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 222 of 253 PageID 2911

Case 3:12-cv-00468 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 82

Case
Case3:15-cv-00703-B
1:08-bk-13846 Doc
Document
91-1 60
FiledFiled
08/21/14
08/03/15
Entered
Page08/21/14
223 of 253
19:08:43
PageIDDesc
2912
Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 1 of 39

Case
Case3:15-cv-00703-B
1:08-bk-13846 Doc
Document
91-1 60
FiledFiled
08/21/14
08/03/15
Entered
Page08/21/14
224 of 253
19:08:43
PageIDDesc
2913
Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 2 of 39

Case
Case3:15-cv-00703-B
1:08-bk-13846 Doc
Document
91-1 60
FiledFiled
08/21/14
08/03/15
Entered
Page08/21/14
225 of 253
19:08:43
PageIDDesc
2914
Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 3 of 39

Case
Case3:15-cv-00703-B
1:08-bk-13846 Doc
Document
91-1 60
FiledFiled
08/21/14
08/03/15
Entered
Page08/21/14
226 of 253
19:08:43
PageIDDesc
2915
Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 4 of 39

Case
Case3:15-cv-00703-B
1:08-bk-13846 Doc
Document
91-1 60
FiledFiled
08/21/14
08/03/15
Entered
Page08/21/14
227 of 253
19:08:43
PageIDDesc
2916
Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 5 of 39

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 228 of 253 PageID 2917

Plaintiffs Exhibit F

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 229 of 253 PageID 2918

RE: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam


---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Richards, Gabrielle D. (Gabby) (Perkins Coie) <--R---s@perkinscoie.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam
To: "----stephans@ord.uscourts.gov" < ----stephans @ord.uscourts.gov>
Cc: "d----@gmail.com" d----@gmail.com
Ms. Stephens,
By way of update, Mr. Maloney is no longer an employee of MGC Mortgage, as of this morning.
Sincerely,
Gabrielle D. Richards | Perkins Coie LLP
D. +1.503.727.2255
F. +1.503.346.2255

From: Richards, Gabrielle D. (Gabby) (Perkins Coie)


Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 11:52 AM
To: ----stephens@ord.uscourts.gov
Cc: d----@gmail.com
Subject: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam
Ms. Stephens,
After the conclusion of the status conference this morning, I was informed that Bret Maloney is a current
employee of MGC Mortgage, a loan servicer for LNV Corporation. As such, it would be inappropriate for
Ms. Subramaniam to contact him directly. If Ms. Subramaniam wishes to depose Mr. Maloney, it would be
appropriate for her to contact me to make the necessary arrangements.
Sincerely,
Gabrielle D. Richards | Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
D. +1.503.727.2255
F. +1.503.346.2255
E. ---R----s@perkinscoie.com

Note: Email addresses have been protected to prevent spamming because these communications
are made public by nature of their inclusion in public court recorders. Otherwise this is a true
and accurate copy of the email communications.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 230 of 253 PageID 2919

Plaintiffs Exhibit G

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 231 of 253 PageID 2920

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 232 of 253 PageID 2921

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

From 1993 instrument

From 1993

From 1994

From 2000

From 2000

Page 233 of 253 PageID 2922

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

From 2000

From 2000

From 2000

Page 234 of 253 PageID 2923

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 235 of 253 PageID 2924

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 236 of 253 PageID 2925

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 237 of 253 PageID 2926

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 238 of 253 PageID 2927

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 239 of 253 PageID 2928

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 240 of 253 PageID 2929

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 241 of 253 PageID 2930

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 242 of 253 PageID 2931

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 243 of 253 PageID 2932

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 244 of 253 PageID 2933

Plaintiffs Exhibit H

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 245 of 253 PageID 2934

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 1

http://www.gavelbangers.com/judges/texas/trial-level/tillery/dale

Hon. Dale B. Tillery

Ratings
#1 clerk or other courthouse employee
Sunday, June 2, 2013 - 02:45

He is arrogant and yells and is never present for work. He needs to be voted out. He gives good rulings
only to attorneys that have given money and lunches and taken him put for drinks. This is one man who
forgot who he works for, that is us the people. Help get him removed. Vote against him in the primary and
vote for, the democrats running against him.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 246 of 253 PageID 2935

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 2


http://pushjunction.com/press_releases/district-judge-dale-tillery-is-investigated-for-six-broad-categories-ofelection-law-violation

DISTRICT JUDGE DALE TILLERY IS INVESTIGATED FOR


SIX BROAD CATEGORIES OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATION
Texas Ethics Advisory Board
HUNTSVILLE, TX, 7 Jul 2012
In an official response to a Sworn Complaint, the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) has notified 134th
District Court Judge Dale Tillery (D-Garland, TX) he is being investigated for multiple campaign finance
violations. (See the attached TEC investigation letter and sworn complaint.)
The Sworn Complaint alleges Tillery, over the past two years accepted a labor union contribution, made
unlawful contributions to a candidate/officeholder and political committees, converted campaign funds to
personal use, failed to fully disclose contributors' principal occupations, job titles, and employers/law
firms, failed to fully disclose the sources of political contributions, failed to fully disclose the recipients
and purposes of political expenditures, and filed several otherwise incomplete reports, with contribution
and loan balances indicating undisclosed campaign contributions and/or expenditures.
The complaint also notes Tillery shows a serious contribution balance discrepancy of $13,064.33.
Mr. Alvin Schleiske, a well-known Woodlands TEA party supporter, filed the complaint after noticing
Judge Tillerys alleged campaign finance violations.
Texas Election Code provides that if Tillery received a contribution from a labor union, that is a third
degree felony offense. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the contribution amount for
making illegal contributions out of his campaign funds. If Tillery converted political contributions to
personal use, he would be civilly liable to the State for the converted amount plus reasonable court costs.
Because of their serious nature, the TEC will process the allegations against Tillery as Category 2
violations. He must formally respond to the TEC by July 19, or face a separate violation and civil penalty.
Officeholders with more serious allegations are allowed more time to respond to the TEC.
Tillery signed his campaign finance reports under the penalty of perjury, and bears the responsibility for
checking the report accuracy and fully disclosing the information required by state law.
Making a false, material, perjurious statement during or in connection with an official Texas Ethics
Commission proceeding constitutes aggravated perjury, a felony of the third degree.
Mr. Schleiske sent the Sworn Complaint to the Texas Ethics Advisory Board (TEAB) for further review.
In a statement to the TEAB about the Tillery complaint, Mr. Schleiske wrote, Judge Tillery has
flagrantly broken the law he is bound by the Texas Constitution to uphold. He is a judge. I find it
astonishing he would be so in your face with his anticsand where did that $13,000 go? The Texas
Ethics Advisory Board is a peer reviewer and consultant regarding Campaign Finance Reports.
Schleiske and the TEAB are members of a large group of citizen-taxpayers in suburban Houston and
surrounding counties who conduct statewide audits of progressive candidates, officeholders and political
action committees who have long been contributing to the runaway growth of government and the loss of
constitutional authority.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 247 of 253 PageID 2936

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 3


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110914-dallas-county-judges-desire-touse-civilian-bailiff-prompts-concerns-from-other-judges.ece

Dallas County judges desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other
judges
Home > News > Community News > Dallas > Dallas Headlines

Dallas County judges desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other
judges
By KEVIN KRAUSE
Staff Writer
kkrause@dallasnews.com
Published: 14 September 2011 10:10 PM - Updated: 14 September 2011 10:33 PM
A Dallas County family court judges decision to use a civilian bailiff instead of a sheriffs deputy has led
to a heated debate about the balance between government efficiencies and courtroom safety.
Judge Lynn Cherry, of the 301st Family District Court, is asking county commissioners to allow for a
full-time civil court clerk to be the bailiff in her court instead of the part-time sheriffs deputy she uses.
The other courts are staffed with sheriffs bailiffs, who are sworn peace officers.
Cherry said her clerk is a retired Highland Park police officer and reserve police officer with extensive
law enforcement and military experience. He is also her current bailiff but will resign from the Sheriffs
Department to become a civilian clerk, she said.
Cherry wants him to be allowed to continue carrying a firearm in court. But county officials say the
district attorneys office will have to look into that since only county law enforcement officers are
authorized to carry firearms inside county courthouses.
The proposed change, which is scheduled for a vote next week, will save the county $11,575 per year, the
county budget office said. Entry-level deputy bailiffs are paid $58,439 annually while civilians are paid
$46,864, county officials said.
But Cherry said the real benefit will be in having the same bailiff in her court at all times. That hasnt
happened, she said, since Sheriff Lupe Valdez replaced full-time bailiffs in the George Allen civil
courthouse with part-timers in January to try to save money and improve efficiency. Since the change,
part-time bailiffs often have had to be replaced in the middle of court proceedings, creating disruptions,
Cherry said.
Cherry said her bailiff sometimes has to be replaced in the middle of a trial because he cant work more
than 38 hours a week.
She said she wants a bailiff whom she knows and understands. She called the current system very
problematic and unsafe.
County Budget Director Ryan Brown said Tuesday that no one is asking the rest of the judges to use
civilian bailiffs. Its the judges choice, he said.
But Judge Denise Garcia, of the 303rd Family District Court, told commissioners recently that Cherry did
not inform the other family court judges of her proposal and that they oppose it.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 248 of 253 PageID 2937

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 4


Once aggressors get into the area behind a courtroom, they can gain access to the other courts, Garcia
said. Were all tied together, she said.
Garcia told commissioners that a civilian bailiff cannot make arrests or process prisoners. She said that
family courts hear many volatile cases and that reducing security in one court renders all of us unsafe.
She also questioned the estimated savings from the move.
Commissioner John Wiley Price praised Cherry for her decision. Price has supported the idea of civilian
bailiffs since the beginning of the year.
She wants an opportunity to try. Let her try, Price said recently.
In January, Dale Tillery, the new judge of the 134th Civil District Court, offered to use a civilian bailiff in
a pilot program to save about $21,000 a year.
A group of judges told commissioners at the time that they opposed the change, saying citizen safety is
paramount in the courts.
The judges are still expressing opposition to civilian bailiffs.
Judge Martin Lowy, a civil court judge, told commissioners during a recent meeting that Cherry has the
right to run her court as she sees fit but that court bailiffs should operate as a team. He said he hasnt been
shown that Tillerys new bailiff is saving money.
We dont want to go in this direction, and we dont think its saving money, said Lowy, the local
administrative judge who speaks for all the judges and handles administrative duties such as
implementing rules.
County Judge Clay Jenkins said its important that the judges come together and communicate about
the matter even if they do not agree. He urged them to go to lunch together to work it out.
Commissioner Elba Garcia said she supports the move.
Sheriff Lupe Valdez has also voiced some concern about Cherrys decision. Valdez has told
commissioners that civilians dont have direct communication with her department and that she cant
respond as quickly to courtroom incidents.
Valdez said last week she wouldnt try to block Cherrys move as long as the judge agreed to sign a
liability waiver. Cherry and the sheriff have already signed an agreement, county officials say.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 249 of 253 PageID 2938

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 5


http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery

Dale B. Tillery
Past position: Partner, Edwards & Tillery

Dale B. Tillery is a judge of the 134th District Court in Texas. He was elected in 2010 and his current term expires
in 2014.
2014
See also: Texas judicial elections, 2014
Tillery is running for re-election to the 134th District Court.
Primary: He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on March 4, 2014.
General: He will be unopposed in the general election on November 4, 2014.[1][2]
2010

Tillery defeated David D. Kelton in a runoff election on April 13, 2010 receiving 67.6% of the vote.[3]
Tillery next defeated James M. Stanton in the general election, winning 50.53% of the vote.[4]
See also: Texas district court judicial elections, 2010

Career
Prior to joining the bench, Tillery gained experience as a partner at the law firm of Edwards & Tillery and
president of Tillery & Tillery. He also served as an elected representative in the Texas House of
Representatives from 1994 through 2000.[6]

Awards and associations


Dale Tillery has been certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Trial Law and
Personal Injury Law and has been admitted to practice law by the Texas Supreme Court, United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.[6]

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 250 of 253 PageID 2939

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 6


http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/campaign-finance/filer/00026547-dale-b-tillery/

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 251 of 253 PageID 2940

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 7

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 252 of 253 PageID 2941

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 8

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15

Page 253 of 253 PageID 2942

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 9


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-25/highland-capital-wins-texas-court-ruling-ending-investors-suit
Bloomberg News

Highland Capital Wins Texas Case Ruling Ending Investor Suit (1)
By Andrew Harris and Thomas Korosec May 25, 2013
Highland Capital Management LP won a Texas court ruling ending a four-year-old lawsuit filed by investors
claiming they were misled about the health of two hedge funds that were later closed.

Dallas County Judge Dale Tillery granted Highlands motion in a ruling earlier this week, following
arguments April 19.
Having reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and after conducting a hearing on the matter, the
court is of the opinion that defendants motion should be granted, the judge said in a two-page ruling.
Story: Litigation-Finance Firm Survives Chevron Debacle, Learns Lessons, and Thrives

LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC and other investor plaintiffs claimed in a 2009 complaint that
Dallas-based Highland misled investors by withholding requested information about the rate of
withdrawals before the firm began winding down Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP and Highland
Credit Strategies Fund Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged in court papers their redemption percentage of the funds liquidated value was
paltry. As of June 2008, LV Highland Credit Feeder Funds stake in Highland Credit Strategies Fund
LP had been valued at more than $40 million, according to the complaint. Six other plaintiffs held lesservalued stakes in the funds.
Our case is based on misconduct, Geoffrey Jarvis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Tillery at the April
hearing. They lied to us. The plaintiff investors said they would have gotten out if theyd known the
true pace of redemptions that totaled $467 million, or 42 percent of one of the funds, in April 2008 alone.
Story: Apples Siri Gets Bruised in a Chinese Patent Fight

Seriously Flawed
This is a seriously flawed case based on things that dont exist, Highland lawyer Michael Aigen said in
court that day, contending there was no evidence of falsity or fraud. Highland personnel had expressed
vague opinions about the state of the fund, not specific incorrect information.
Thomas Becker, a spokesman for Highland, declined to comment. Jarvis didnt immediately reply to an email seeking comment after regular business hours.
The case is LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC v. Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP, DC09-08521,
Dallas County, Texas District Court, 134th Judicial District (Dallas).
Story: Highway Guardrails Are Killing Drivers, Says Industry Insider

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at
aharris16@bloomberg.net; Tom Korosec in Dallas County Court in Texas at
tkorosec@texaswordworks.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
Story: Pom Wins in the Supreme Court. Now it's Pom v. Coke, Round 2