1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Defendants.

---------------------------------------Deposition of THE BANK OF NEW YORK, by and through MINDY LEETHAM, taken on behalf of Defendant Paulette Williams, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative in the above-entitled action, on Tuesday, January 15, 2008, beginning at 10:10 a.m., at the offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL, 12627 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 203, Jacksonville, Florida, 32223, before Katharine M. Henderson, Registered Merit Reporter, and a Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large. PAULETTE WILLIAMS; MERCURY FINANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE EQCC ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-2, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 16-2006-CA-1564 CV-C

2

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: Paulette Williams. JAMES A. KOWALSKI, JR., Esquire James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL 12627 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 203 Jacksonville, Florida 32223 Appearing on behalf of Defendant Paulette Williams. ERIC C. REED, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff. A P P E A R A N C E S

3

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOR IDENTIFICATION EXHIBIT 1............................. PAGE 11 EXHIBIT 2............................. PAGE 19 EXHIBIT 3............................. PAGE 21 EXHIBIT 4............................. PAGE 32 EXHIBIT 5............................. PAGE 34 EXHIBIT 6............................. PAGE 14 EXHIBIT 7............................. PAGE 37 EXHIBIT 8............................. PAGE 56 E X H I B I T S WITNESS: THE BANK OF NEW YORK, by and through MINDY LEETHAM DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KOWALSKI.... PAGE 4 I N D E X

4

So we've got I'm going to 5 . Ms. and in order to take the pressure off the court reporter. And where do you work. M-i-n-d-y? L-e-e-t-h-a-m. by and through MINDY LEETHAM. Leetham? I work for Select Portfolio Servicing. Mindy Leetham. and questions would be answered before they were finished. et cetera. please. friend or a coworker. there would probably be a good bit of interrupting because you would know where they were going and they would know where you were going. we can't do that. I haven't. can you state your name. having been produced and first duly sworn as a witness. to build in a little bit of a delay. testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION artificial conversation. And have you ever given a deposition THE BANK OF NEW YORK. KOWALSKI: Q A Q A Q A Q before? A Q No. A deposition is a little bit of an If you were talking to a Ma'am. Because we're creating a record here.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR.

but a lot of times we can't tell the difference. A Q Yes. If you answer a question that I have asked Fair enough? without asking me to explain it or rephrase it. If it's a yes or a no. et cetera. minute. and I'm going to ask that you do your best not to answer over my questions. then I will assume." The "unh-unh" or You'll get used to it in a the "uh-huh" makes it to the record. that you understood the question and answered it accordingly.I work for the chief compliance officer to work with the 6 . If you need to take a break. let me know. And what does that mean? A compliance specialist -. How long have you worked for SPS? For eight years. A Q A Q Yes. and the record will reflect.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do my best not to question over your answers. you need to answer "yes" or "no" as opposed to nodding your head or as opposed to saying "unh-unh" or "uh-huh. And what is your current job Fair enough? classification? A Q A Compliance specialist.

And where is Mr.I have a pretty good overview of what happens in mortgage servicing. Q Who is the chief compliance officer to whom you report? A Q A Q A Q A Q His name is Jeff Graham. Take me through. if you can. G-r-a-h-a-m. A Q You want to know my job titles? Your job titles and a general description And if it's easier for you to go of what you did. if it's easier for you to start 7 .6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 departments internally and ensure that policies and procedures are being followed and that they get any updates to federal or state law. Where are you based? In Salt Lake City. Utah. do that. backwards. Graham located? In Salt Lake City. And spell that last name. a history of your time with SPS before you began working in the compliance department. please. Q Do you know how it was that you were selected to be the corporate representative for the deposition today? A I believe it's because I've worked there for a long time and I know -.

Q A And what does that person do? And that person takes phone calls. then. do that. you. Q How long did you work in the loan resolution department? A Loan resolution? About a year. I'll start at the beginning. works out loss mitigation options with customers on the phone. I should say they -.well.if payments are made. Q A Go ahead.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the beginning and move forward ending with the compliance division. they can advise our cashiering department how to apply them or what to do if they're working with a customer on a forbearance agreement or on other types of options. Whatever's easier for I started out as a loan servicing representative in our loan resolution department.they -. And then I worked back in loan resolution 8 . processes payments -. A Okay. And then I moved to the corporate legal department and worked as a litigation specialist. you know. not processes. Q A Go ahead. and. And then I went to the human resources department and became an employee trainer.

corporate legal to loan resolution to contested foreclosure? A Q I don't understand your question. that's handled by the corporate legal department. interrelate? certain types -. those three in Does one handle only particular. A But the terms suggest some overlap. take. Q Is there a document or a flow chart that exists that relates. And then the ombudsman department.for example. 9 . then I worked in the contested foreclosure department. Q A Go ahead. but it's also in court. contested foreclosure I could see flowing over into corporate legal. or if it's a separate litigated matter. for example. but Contested It I'll try to explain the difference. both in some sense are ongoing. There's two foreclosures. may not. Once the account becomes a litigated matter. I guess there could be some overlap. Q Well. how do the three.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as a supervisor over a team of representatives. this loan. foreclosure is a group that handles just foreclosure accounts that have become contested. for example. It's contested. Well. And And that brings me to compliance specialist.

moving it from legal to contested foreclosure. does that trigger the flow chart. loan resolution. So how would this foreclosure. for example? A I think it's handled just on a case-by-case basis. for example. Presently the corporate legal department is handling it as a litigated account. I don't know that for a hundred percent 10 .9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And you're here from compliance. Q And again. relate to corporate legal. And I would imagine. when something -.when a complaint gets a counterclaim. or contested foreclosure? Is somebody in each department handling part of this case? A At one time or another loan resolution has handled this account. contested foreclosure has handled this account. Q Who's the captain of the ship for determining which department would be handling a case such as this one? A David Coleman is over the contested foreclosure group that handled this prior to it moving over to the litigation group. is there some sort of mapping or flow chart that defines which department handles a case such as this at certain phases? In other words.

H-o-l-t-z? Just Z. And what's Mr." Q A Q A Q Where it is now? Yes. that brings you here actually asks for the Bank of New York to designate a person to speak on behalf of 11 . but he probably had a discussion with corporate legal to say. Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Holtz. so I'm not sure. H-o-l-z? Uh-huh. "We believe this file should be transferred to your litigation team. The notice. Do you know who Mr. no T. For SPS? Yes. Graham your direct supervisor? Yes. which we'll mark as Exhibit 1. Graham's supervisor it's Bob Holz. Well. do I? Let's see. What was it before? General counsel. and I'll just leave that on there for now.10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is? A Yes. I think certainty. Is Mr. Holz's title? It just changed.

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certain issues. what they have Select Portfolio Servicing do for them. and That's they don't handle the servicing of the loan. Select Portfolio Servicing is the one who would handle that. (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification. A Yes. Q A And how do you know that? Well. Q And I understand that may be true as sort of a general proposition. not to Select Portfolio Servicing. 12 . KOWALSKI: Q Have you reviewed Exhibit 1 before I just Are you aware of that? handed it to you? A Q Yes. Exhibit 1 is obviously directed to the Bank of New York. What is it that allows you to testify as the corporate representative of a separate corporate entity? A In matters of servicing the loan.) BY MR. Bank of New York is the trustee. do you see that? A Q Yes. A Uh-huh.

you reviewed any document that allows you to speak on behalf of Bank of New York? A Q I haven't. It's my understanding I believe it was So up till today.a series of questions such as these are to be asked of the Bank of New York. represent the trust. 13 . Have you reviewed the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in this case? A Q No. Have you spoken to anyone at Bank of New York to confirm that you are allowed to speak on behalf of a separate corporate entity here today? A No.12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Is there something that confirms that? Is there some document that says that when a -. Q Typically a Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the documents that relate to that? A Q Typically. I haven't. have objected to being produced. but I'm sure there's some kind of agreement made when they hire a servicer to represent them. the human being that comes is an employee of SPS? that? A I don't know for a hundred percent Is there a document that says certainty the name of the document.

asks you to bring all documents which are reviewed by the deponent in preparation for testifying here today.let me go backwards on And I'll ask you to move to the very And Exhibit 1 asks you to bring certain And number one in particular documents here today. Other than the documents to your right. and you and Mr. last page. Reed were kind enough to let me skim through those before we started. A Q Do you see that? Yes. And you have a stack of documents to your right. And that's fair. Let's -.I think it was five pages. Okay. this accounting. And you're referring to a -.13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit 1. A Q Yes. have you reviewed anything else to prepare you for testifying here today? A Q Well. Q So as you sit here. do you know whether you have the authority from the Bank of New York to testify to these matters and to bind the Bank of New York as a corporation? A Q No. and that's what I'm trying to ask. 14 .

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this? MR. And you've already testified with regard to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that you have not reviewed a Pooling and Servicing Agreement before coming here today. Okay. KOWALSKI: (Exhibit 6 was marked for identification. And is it also fair to say that since the documents to your right and Exhibit 6 are all that you have reviewed. A Q Yes. REED: Yep. MR. KOWALSKI: Did I give you a copy of MR.) BY MR. A five-page spreadsheet that has in the middle the initials KLT? A Q That's correct. I think we're going to be up to 6. that you also have not reviewed 15 . the KLT.what I'll now mark as Exhibit 6. And I'll go ahead and mark that. have you reviewed anything else in preparation for testifying here today? A Q No. KOWALSKI: Q Other than the documents to your right and Exhibit -. correct? A Q That's correct.

directors. Well. correct? A Q That's correct. You're not a director of the Bank of New persons who consent to testify on behalf of the Bank 16 . move back in to Exhibit 1. All right. explore. then. You're not a managing agent of the Bank of any other documents that explain. Do you see that? A Q Yes. the Bank of New York. two. And I'll ask you to turn to page And we have asked that the Bank of New York designate one or more officers.15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 York? A Q New York? A Q Correct. let's. So you would be in the category of other Correct. delineate the relationship between the Bank of New York and SPS? A Q That's correct. or managing agents or other persons to testify regarding the transactions by which plaintiff obtained ownership of the subject note and mortgage. Okay. And let me go back before I get You are not an officer of into the question one.

Let's go backwards this time. which is EQCC.) MR. A Oh. the numbers we gave before. All right. (Off-the-record discussion. A Q A Q Okay. Okay. issue number one. Back on the record. securitized this loan. correct? A Q That's correct. NationsCredit was back here. then. So the Bank of America is the trustee for the trust. A Q From its origination? From its most recent transfer. KOWALSKI: Okay. that's fine. which meant to pool it up 17 . as trustee for the holders of the EQCC asset-backed certificates Series 2001-2 obtained ownership of this note and mortgage. not on Exhibit 1.16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A of New York. And I believe NationsCredit. Okay. Tell me how the Bank of New York. as I understand it through the assignment chain. the transaction by which the plaintiff obtained ownership of the subject note and mortgage. Do you mind if I draw? Well. I'll give you another sheet. who -. Let's get into.let's see. let me know. If you need a different pen or something like that.

the transfer from NationsCredit into the pool or from NationsCredit to the Bank of New York as trustee? A Q A Q Yes. And prior to that was Aames. and you And we are the can parcel this up by way of transaction if you need to. who is the actual lender. they don't service or anything. And I guess the retail I think they're the I think One Stop is the retail name for Aames. I know I saw one to the Bank of New York. This is a pool. And I have an extra copy of it depending upon the order that you've got it in. is there a document that you've reviewed that confirms.17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into this pool. 0003. servicer. If you can find -. A This one's from Nations to Select. same. 18 . name of Aames is One Stop. or trust. which is called the EQCC trust. Sold it to NationsCredit. I saw an assignment in the documents. Q Okay. to my knowledge. and Bank of New York is the trustee of the trust. Okay. who securitized it into a pool.and it may be -- Out of order? Plaintiff's 3. let me ask you. First off. who sold the loan to NationsCredit. for example. because they don't do that.

Okay. 0003 appears to be from NationsCredit to the Bank of New York as trustee. to the Bank of New York as trustee? A Q Yes. which I was going to mark 19 . And I had pulled that out. Williams's mortgage. is that the document that you're relying on to testify that NationsCredit transferred ownership of this note and mortgage. Let me give you the one with the sticky on it. I've reviewed it. And let me ask you before we go into that document. Do you know of any other documents that exist that confirm that transaction other than Plaintiff's 3. Okay. ma'am. And let me just show this to you and have you confirm that it's the same document. A Q Oh. yes. Yes. relating to Ms. Have you had a chance to review what was previously produced in response to request for production and was Bates stamped Plaintiff's 3? A Q A Q Is that this one? Yes. okay. Okay. All right.18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Well. which I'm going to mark separately here in a second? A Q I don't.

Yes.as Exhibit 2. they have the same Bates stamp on them. Have you had a chance to review what's been now marked as Exhibit 2? A Q Uh-huh. 2004? And you can toss that now.or to your right? (Nods head. A Q Oh. (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification. KOWALSKI: Q Okay. Let's look at what we've now marked as Plaintiff's -. And can you confirm that it's the same as Plaintiff's 3. is the date on the document that you're relying upon to testify that NationsCredit transferred and sold this note and mortgage to the Bank of New York as trustee. And that September 24.) BY MR.19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 separately as 2. correct? 20 . All right. in fact. separately Bates stamped as Plaintiff's 3. as was in the stack of documents to your left -A Q A Q Yes. 2004.) (Off-the-record discussion. You agree that Exhibit 2 is dated September 24.) Okay. -. yes.

. KOWALSKI: Q Let me show you what I'll mark as Exhibit Okay. look at Exhibit 3? Have you had a chance to 21 .20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Yes. which is the copy of the filed and recorded lis pendens in case 2004-4918. Do you mind if I look at this? Not at all. . THE WITNESS: (Short break. 3. And you're referring to the KLT screen? A Q A Yes. when did the bank file the lis pendens in the 2004 case.) BY MR. MR. 2004-4918-CA? A Let me look at the . Well. KOWALSKI: Let me take a quick break and I'll pull that lis pendens. right? A Q No. I've got it written down somewhere as I looked through. I don't have the date memorized. So there's no doubt but that the Bank of New York acquired this note and mortgage after filing the complaint and lis pendens in the 2004 case. Which is Exhibit 6.

2004. So again. for better or for worse. (Exhibit 3 was marked for identification. there's no doubt but that the Bank of New York acquired the subject note and mortgage after it filed its notice of lis pendens in the 2004 case.21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes. now. 2004. I believe it was just not recorded at the time it was -. KOWALSKI: Q And you see it's signed on July 11. Q A Q Okay.) BY MR. And that's a date that is before September 24. A Q Okay. The way I understand it. If there's something you've got on behalf of the Bank of New York that can show us that the Bank of New York acquired this note and mortgage 22 . I don't know how to answer that. which is the date on Exhibit 2. Well. correct? A Well. and filed and recorded on July 17. 2004. is the time to testify to the transactions by which plaintiff obtained ownership of the subject note and mortgage. correct? A Q Correct.I believe the assignment was completed but not recorded in the proper timing.

I need to see that. A Q Another recorded document? Some other writing.) Okay. fka Fairbanks Capital Corp. since mortgages are only transferred in Florida by writing. Let's get further into the Exhibit 2. by an assignment in writing. I need to see something that confirms that the Bank of New York acquired the note and mortgage before it sued Ms. "Select Portfolio Servicing.22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q before the record shows.I'm sorry. which we're referring to as the 2004 case. Is there a document or some other indicia Do you see that? that confirms that Nations -. A I don't have anything with me. A Q Yes. or by merger or by some other document. as attorney in fact for NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida. that confirms that Select Portfolio Servicing can act as attorney in fact for NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida? 23 . And Do I? Is there anything it says just above the signature line. REED: (Shakes head. THE WITNESS: that shows that? MR. Williams in 2004-4918.

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q I don't know. No. correct? A Q A Q Uh-huh. And was her title in 2004 Document Control Do you see that? 24 . whose title is Document Control Officer. You have not reviewed anything? on you. Okay. I'm actually doing it to be hard on him and on your client. A Q A Q Officer? Yes. Andersen? Yes. correct? A Q Correct. his client. Andersen. And again. Is that a yes? Yes. because you are the corporate representative who is supposed to be here to testify to the transaction by which the ownership was obtained. Do you know Ms. with two Ls. It's signed by a person named Michelle. Okay. And the only document that you've produced today that relates to the transaction that brings the note and mortgage to the Bank of New York is Exhibit 2. I'm not doing this to be hard I don't know.

is that correct? That's correct. in other words.24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes. they handle that. Before a foreclosure is filed. completing assignment chains. is it Yes. Do you know what that means to SPS? It means she was overseeing that department of the document control. Just getting anything that has to do with origination documents or. Q And what does the document control Maybe that's a better question. -. department do? A Generally they handle obtaining assignments and getting it recorded. Q Do you know that from your work in your various department with SPS? A Q control -A Q A Q No. to confirm that the named plaintiff owns the note before the lawsuit is filed? 25 . you know. And you never worked in document document control with SPS that has the responsibility for checking the chain of ownership. it was. obtaining servicing and origination files.

in a system format where they look at a computer screen. Q Is there a prompt that has to be completed For example. Or it could be in -. do you know how it is that the people who populate those departments know to do that task before the foreclosure is filed? A There are internal policies and procedures that are followed.25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I think it overlaps somewhat with the I think they work hand in foreclosure department. confirm location of original note and mortgage. in other words. I don't know. Well. Q Is there some checklist or manual where that particular issue is confirmed before the foreclosure is filed. hand on that. I'm not sure. it is confirmed that the named plaintiff owns the note and mortgage before it files its lawsuit? A Q I don't know of a manual. that type of thing? A Possibly. is there for that task in particular? something on a computer screen where the person is looking at the prompt that says "confirm plaintiff owns note and mortgage before filing suit"? 26 . Q Is it in the form of a checklist? In other words: Confirm ownership.

your question was very specific and 27 . straightforward and clear and that the bank's case was doomed from the outset. Isn't it fair to say that my question Do you see that? regarding what checklists are followed and what personnel. Okay. Just for a moment. You are the Bank of New York representative here to testify to the decision to pursue foreclosure in the prior action. This area of inquiry includes but is not limited to the identify of all Bank of New York employees or agents responsible for approving the filing of the amended complaint. bounce down to paragraph four of Exhibit 1. specifically including but not limited to all employees or agents of Bank of New York with knowledge the bank's lack of standing was glaring. which is the 2004 action. amended notice of lis pendens and motion for summary judgment after having actual knowledge the bank's lack of standing was glaring. A Q Yes. which is the notice. agents. straightforward and clear and that the bank's case was doomed from the outset.26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I don't know. or employees of the Bank of New York followed those actions would be a question directed at topic four? A Well.

who did it in this case? In 2002? In --.and correct me if I'm wrong.27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very technical. which. you're free to do that -relates directly to which agents or employees of the bank examined the issue of standing.I know a broad overview that somebody must go over that information. But in your question you asked me if someone checks off a list.the person. I mean. ownership of the note and mortgage. Prior to filing the 2004 case. I'm asking you how is that not related directly to my question? A That is related to your question. who on I don't know the -- 28 . again. and I don't know specifically how they do their task. You're right. Or in 2004. Q My question relates to the identity of the Bank of New York's employees or agents responsible for pursuing foreclosure knowing the bank lacked standing. how they -. relates directly -. but I don't know the technical procedure. and I couldn't answer yes or no to it. before the foreclosure was filed. Q A Q A Q A Q Well.

I understand a lawyer filed it. or a -. I have the name of Michelle I don't know the name of the person in the foreclosure department that reviewed it prior to the lis pendens being filed. amended notice of lis pendens and motion for summary judgment? A Q A Q A Q No. Q Do you know the identity of the Bank of New York employees or agents responsible for approving the filing of the amended complaint. and with the help of document control. Q A Andersen. Williams? A That would have been our foreclosure department.probably a clerk filed it -A Uh-huh. Do you have the names in your memory? Who actually filed it? Who approved the filing. And the names. 29 . Why not? I don't have the names in front of me.28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behalf of the Bank of New York conducted a review of the ownership of the note and mortgage to confirm that the Bank of New York owned the note and mortgage before it sued Ms. please. Well.

Right. then.) (The following question was read by the reporter: "Let me ask you. going backwards in the chain of assignments. foreclosure. that NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida owned the note and mortgage as of September 23. Either I can step out or you can ask him to step out. is it your testimony. so that it could sell it and assign it to the Bank of New York? A Q Could I ask Eric a question first? Yes. (Short break. then. we can -. 2004. Q Does SPS or the Bank of New York have that information somewhere? A Q A Q Yes. with regard Yeah. Okay. I'm asking for the names. Let me ask you. MR.we'll step out 30 .29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A -. REED: for a minute. whatever is easier for you. You just don't have it here today? I just don't have it here.but who approved the filing? The same department. I don't know the name of the exact representative. with regard to Exhibit 2. Okay.

and re-ask the question.30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to Exhibit 2. Now. that NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida owned the note and mortgage as of September 23.the issue with saying yes or no to whether or not they owned this loan as of September of '04 and assigned it to NationsCredit at that time as owner. is it your testimony. Q Okay. Q A I'm sorry. I'm not referring to the recording date. going backwards in the chain of assignments. 2004. that this is when it was actually recorded. Did NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida have legal ownership of the note and And let me go back 31 . so that it could sell it and assign it to the Bank of New York?") A And I'm going to say that I believe there was some overlapping in the period of time that the loan was transferred and the assignment was completed and then recorded. can you explain that? The -. I'm actually referring to the date on the document itself suggesting that that's the date the transfer took place. and that seems to be the issue. but the transfer of the loan happened prior to that. I'm saying there's some overlapping.

Q Well.31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPS. but the ownership. I'm just In not sure if there's something legal prior to this document that would have allowed them to do that. did it own it to sell it? A Yeah. don't know. I understand that the servicing was transferred -A Q Uh-huh. -. but possibly you could understand that through reading the contact history and just seeing the transfer of the loan from one entity to the next. Do you have any other document that would either confirm or contest whether 32 . I understand your question. Q Is there anything in the paperwork that I you've brought here today in response to subject number one that would otherwise illuminate that question or illuminate that issue? A I don't know if there's a document.and that there was a servicer before Is that what your contact history would show? Yes. not the servicing. What I'm getting at is the ownership of the actual note and mortgage. A Q mortgage as of the time it transferred and assigned the note and mortgage to the Bank of New York? other words.

You do believe. 2004? A Q A Q Yes. Let me show you what I'll mark as Exhibit 4.or is. Okay. (Exhibit 4 was marked for identification. KOWALSKI: Q Have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 33 . is an NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida owned this note and mortgage in order to assign it as set forth in Exhibit 2? A Q Not that I know of. which are some documents from the Secretary of State for the State of Florida and ask you to review that.) BY MR. And allowed SPS to act as attorney in fact for NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida as of September 24. that there is something that allowed SPS to act as attorney in fact for NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida.32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4? A Q Yes. in response to my earlier questions. What Exhibit 4 are -. You just don't have that here today? Correct. correct? A Q Yes.

can you explain to me how SPS had authority to act as attorney in fact for a corporation that ceased to exist five years earlier? A Oh. A Q Uh-huh.33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Articles of Merger relating to a series of corporations that used to exist. 1999. A Q So I can't answer that. yes. I've never seen this Articles of Merger before. true. Do you see that? seven -. I'm asking you for purposes of the question to assume that the Secretary of State's 34 . Well. four. And one. Q I understand that. A Q Yes. five. three. A Q Yes. It was actually produced in the pleadings in the '04 case. And this document confirms that Do you see that? NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida merged into NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation as of November 30.seven down from the top we see the corporation listed as NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida. six. two. And thereafter would have ceased to exist So assuming that's Do you see that? as a separate corporate entity.

1999." Q And again. that's a document or documents that specifically relate to the authority of SPS to sign on behalf of NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida that you don't have here today? A Q That's correct. Do you see that? A Q Yes. can you explain how SPS would have been able to act as attorney in fact for a corporation that ceased to exist five years earlier? A Perhaps they had a document that said "formerly known as NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida. Do you see that? 35 .) BY MR.34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 records are accurate and reflect that NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida ceased to exist as a separate corporate entity as of November 30. Let me ask you to review Exhibit 5 which was previously produced to us and bears Bates stamp Plaintiff's 188. A Yes. (Exhibit 5 was marked for identification. Assuming that to be true. KOWALSKI: Q A Have you reviewed Exhibit 5 before today? Yes.

And this assignment is to the correct corporate entity that appears on Exhibit 4. February 23. How do you know that? We just saw that one. which is the date on Exhibit 2. But we've just agreed that this 2004. Q And October 13.35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one. who owned the note and mortgage? A Q A Bank of New York.I'm sorry. 2004. Q Right. 2004. So as of October 13. into NationsCredit Financial Services Corp. Q And when did the assignment or sale of this note and mortgage purport to have occurred? A Date of assignment says October 13th. who owned the note and mortgage? A Q NationsCredit Financial Services Corp. correct? A Q That's correct. correct? A Q Correct. 2005 -. didn't we? This assignment to Bank of New York is dated before this 36 . 24. 2006. 2004. And so as of February 23. is after September Q A What is Exhibit 5? It is the assignment from Aames Capital Corp.

KOWALSKI: minute.36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assignment to the correct corporate entity. please find it. KOWALSKI: Q A Q All right. Okay. I think when we took our break you Ready? were looking for some assignment that was after October of 2004. Okay. I'm going to step out for a Do you mind if I look through for just a Anybody else need a break? (Short break. I found the one that was confusing 37 . maybe it's just this one and I just didn't realize the dates were out of sync.well. If you can. which according to the Secretary of State was the only corporate entity which existed in 2004. NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation. So my question again to you as a representative of Bank of New York is who owned this note and mortgage as of February 2006? A Q A I thought there was one more assignment. A Well. Yes. It was -. minute? Q A Not at all.) BY MR. MR.

correct? A Q That's what it says. 2001. 166 in the Bates stamping. And I think we are up to 7. And what you've pulled out is an assignment dated November 8. Okay.) I don't see a Number 6. Yes. This is an assignment.37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q me. A Q A Q It was in this stack. Can you find where NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation ever owned this 38 . Go ahead and hold on to 7 for me. which is an assignment in 2001 to the Bank of New York. Let me mark Is it okay to make this an exhibit? that assignment as Exhibit 7. Q Right. A Q Okay. The KLT screen is marked as 6. And it is Plaintiff's (Exhibit 7 was marked for identification. And it's assigning it to NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation as successor in interest by merger with NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation. Okay. it's Is this your copy? Plaintiff's 166. yes. correct? A Q Yes.

note? A I'm looking for the original note and I know it's in this mortgage just so I can see it. if they were from the bank they were Bates stamped. A actually. And I believe the original mortgage is at 130. your question. And that should be followed by the note at same documents. Q A You're at Plaintiff's 13? Yes. stack somewhere. A Q Okay. I don't have a document that answers Yes. Q So can you sit here and testify that NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation ever owned this note? 39 . if you can On the lower right of your documents. A I think we have a different stack of the Let's see. Q And I believe they appear several times in this stack.38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139. right? Q find -A Q 130? Look at Plaintiff's 130. I found it in a different place.

I think that's probably pretty clear that the servicing went from one entity to -. anything at all that can tell us that NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation ever owned this note and mortgage? A would.I believe NationsCredit actually serviced its own loan.this assignment Do you want to see that? Well. And for better or for in topic one is ownership. Q I guess this would -. this assignment is from NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida. Q I understand about the servicing. and then it went to SPS. What we're here to talk about. you're the person here to talk about it. carrier pigeon. though. e-mail. document. worse.I can't prove that with a document. A Q Uh-huh. or a division of NationsCredit serviced its own loan. And your question was? My question is do you have anything.39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Not with a document -. Q A Can you prove it with anything at all? Just from the assignment chain and just knowing that we had a right to service it. which as we know from the Secretary of State is a separate corporate entity from NationsCredit Home Equity 40 .

which is 41 . A Q A I don't know. we've already talked about the fact that it ceased to exist in 1999. but we also know that Home Equity Services Corporation is a separate corporate entity from NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation of Florida. so at least the assignor is correctly named.40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Services Corporation. In other words. We -I would imagine that as successor in interest by a merger. Q Well.Home Equity Services Corporation. we know that NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation existed because it appears on Exhibit 4 as a corporate entity that merged into NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation. we know that NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation was a successor in interest by merger with NationsCredit Home Equity Corporation -. What I'm asking you about is the separate corporate entity of NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation and whether or not that named corporate entity ever owned this note and mortgage. they would be recognized as the owner of the note. I understand about And NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida.

A Q Okay. correct? A Q Correct. correct? A Q Yes. This assignor is NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation. 16th Floor.41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the entity that purports to assign the note in September of '04. to assignee. So again. Not the Bank of New York as a separate corporation at 5 Penn Plaza. the assignor is specifically named as the trust. or to Bank of New York in its capacity as trustee. Okay. Whereas here. do you have anything at all that suggests that NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation ever owned this note? A Q I don't. on Exhibit 2. the Bank of New York is named here as the Bank of New York. correct? A Q Yes. the successor in interest by merger with NationsCredit Home Equity Services Corporation. And we know from Exhibit 5 that 42 . Now. correct? A Q Correct. and there's a little asterisk that drops you down to the Bank of New York.

oh. and the only thing you've brought. Q A Q All right. Exhibit 2. correct? A Q Correct. So find me something that post dates 43 . So who owned this note and mortgage in February 2006? A Q Bank of New York. Which -We've already confirmed the Exhibit 2 We've -- predates Exhibit 5. All right. Show me something that tells me that Bank of New York acquired ownership of this note and mortgage after October 2004. owned it as of October 13. 2004. the assignment -. Reed has handed you what? Anything at Plaintiff's 0003. sorry.42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation didn't even get it from Aames until October of '04. all. correct? A Q Yes. Show me something that proves that. shows us that NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation. Because the only thing we have in front of us. Mr. which is a valid corporation as of that date.

(Off-the-record discussion. which according to Exhibit 4 is the only corporate entity that would have existed in 2004. A I don't have anything with me that shows that the Bank of New York acquired this note and mortgage after the date on Exhibit 5? A I don't personally know that. specifically. Let's look at issue number And before we do that. let's just make a quick confirmation that we have all the exhibits. Q Do you know if anything exists that shows Exhibit 5. a memorialization. a billboard. anything at all. Q So it's fair to say as of today you are not able to testify fully as to issue number one in Exhibit 1? A Q That's correct. a writing. but I'm going to ask that question. which pursuant to Exhibit 5 is when NationsCredit acquired it. 2004. NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation.) 44 . that. I'm not trying to be facetious.43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two. but find me anything that can prove to a court of competent jurisdiction that the Bank of New York acquired this note and mortgage after October 13. All right.

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. And then with regard to whether or not SPS is an agent of the Bank of New York. referring to the '06 or 2006 case. which is the '06 matter specifically. including but not limited to the decision to pursue foreclosure while Case No. Let's move to area number two on The decision to pursue foreclosure in this matter. including but not limited to the decision to seek a default judgment alleging an inability to locate defendant. Do you when we're discussing or using -. 2004-4918-CA was pending. 2006-1564-CA. And when I'm referring to the '04 case or When I'm 2004 case. KOWALSKI: Q Exhibit 1. A Q Do you understand that? Yes. just for the record. would you agree with me that Select Portfolio Servicing is 45 . Okay.when I'm using the term "SPS. This area of inquiry specifically seeks the identify of all Bank of New York management-level employees or agents with knowledge of the 2004 and 2006 actions. I'm referring to 2006-1564. see that area of inquiry? A Q Yes. I'm referring to 2004-4918." I'm using it to mean Select Portfolio Servicing. First off. Okay.

Q Do you know any management-level employee or agent who would be only aware of the '04 case? A Q A Q Employee would be Troy Noble. to two. And that's the only management level that I know would know both cases. All right. All right. Let's go back. Noble located? Salt Lake City. I don't know. David Coleman in Salt Lake City. then. A Okay. And where is Mr. Q A Q And he's in Salt Lake City? Yes. Coleman. And tell us who those would be and where they would be found. Let's go back to Mr. And do you know of any employees or agents with knowledge of only the 2006 case? A I think Dustin Stevenson. We asked for the identity of all Bank of New York management-level employees or agents with knowledge of 2004 and 2006 actions. And he may have knowledge of both. And I think you told us before that he was head of contested foreclosure? 46 .45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acting as the agent of the Bank of New York with regard to the 2004 and 2006 actions? A Q Yes.

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q That's correct. And again, an employee of SPS? Yes. Have you spoken to Mr. Coleman in

preparation for your testimony here today? A Q No. And tell me what knowledge Mr. Coleman has

with regard to the 2004 action. A He would have information and knowledge And I don't know specifically

of -- of the case.

the decisions made, but he would have a general knowledge of the whole case. Q Do you know if Mr. Coleman would have

knowledge of the decision to seek a default judgment alleging that the Bank of New York could not locate Ms. Williams in the '06 case while the '04 case remained pending? A history? Q Not at all. You just need to tell us what Do you mind if I look at the contact

you're looking at. A Q documents. A Contact history. And tell us where that's found in your You can identify it by the Bates -Oh, Plaintiff 0065 through 104.

47

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right? (The following answer was read by the reporter: A "Plaintiff 0065 through 104.") (Short break.) BY MR. KOWALSKI: Q Okay. We are back to -I'm sorry, can you . . .

MR. KOWALSKI:

(The following questions and answers were read by the reporter: "Do you know if Mr. Coleman

would have knowledge of the decision to seek a default judgment alleging that the Bank of New York could not locate Ms. Williams in the '06 case while the '04 case remained pending? "Answer, Do you mind if I look at the contact history? "Question, Not at all. tell us what you're looking at. "Answer, Contact history. "Question, And tell us where that's found in your documents.") THE WITNESS: You heard where it was, You just need to

So the last question was would David

Coleman have knowledge of the '04 case? Q Would he have knowledge of the decision to

seek a default in the '06 case alleging that the

48

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bank of New York couldn't find Mrs. Williams to serve her while the '04 case was pending? A Q Most likely he would know. Are you aware that that's what happened?

In other words, are you aware that the bank sued Ms. Williams in the '06 case, alleged it couldn't find her for service of process, and then took a default judgment against her in the '06 case that had to be then set aside? A Q I did not know all the details of that. Okay. Were you aware that the bank

alleged in the '06 case that it couldn't find Ms. Williams to serve her with the '06 lawsuit? A Yes. I mean, I understood that just prior

to coming here, yes. Q And were you aware that at the time the

'04 case was pending in another division? A Q A Q Uh-huh. Yes? Yes. Okay. So you think that Mr. Coleman would

have knowledge of the bank's decision to seek a default alleging that it couldn't find Ms. Williams in the '06 case? A Yes. David Coleman would have knowledge

49

yes. but I know that he will have knowledge of the case. Q A And what are you looking at to know that? I just -. Q A And you're looking at. in other words? A Q A Q Yes. but they are e-mails from David Coleman to his group and to other people regarding the case. Q A And how do you know that? Because he is over that department and he knows what goes on in the files. Coleman? Yes. However.I don't know the specifics that he will know. there are notes in here that show that he is working along with his group on the file. 65? Yes. Q And show me what you're looking at. for example. Is there anything in the record that shows his actual knowledge? A Not to that detail. Because you know Mr. Q You're assuming that he knows what his people are doing. or just tell us what page and what section. A Parts of it have been redacted. 50 .49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the case.

"Process opened 10/3/2006 by user David Coleman"? A Q Yes. Q And did Mr. Do you know where she works? I think she's a foreclosure representative. And that's what you're relying on? Yes. Stevenson report to Mr. Who is Ms. Coleman was the head of Do you know his actual contested foreclosure. Do you know if she's an employee of SPS? I believe she is. And then there's e-mails back and forth from Dustin Stevenson to David Coleman and cc'ing a Rebecka. M-a-y-o-h? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Yes. Mayoh. R-e-b-e-c-k-a. You said that Mr. for He is either a director or a I'm not sure. Mayoh.50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Near the bottom it says. management title? example? A Is he a vice-president. 51 . Mayoh? I don't know Ms. Coleman? A Q Yes. vice-president.

Do you know if Mr. Relates to the 2004 case? Yes. Do you know in 2004 what his job title contested foreclosure department back in 2004? A Yes. Coleman ran the Q And is it fair to say that most of your testimony regarding his knowledge comes from your knowledge of him? A Q Yes. corresponded back in 2004. letters to Ms.where do you get that information from? A That is also in the contact history notes and in some of the documents in this stack (indicating).is it And they Noble or Nobles? A Q A Q It's Noble.specifically on the 2004 case. -. Williams. Q And you believe Mr. 52 . And where do you -. You also referenced a Troy Noble who was in Salt Lake -A Q Uh-huh. Noble relates -.51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was? A Q Contested foreclosure representative.

Q And how many do you have daily or weekly City? A I think approximately 800 to 1.000 in Salt from? A I -. Coleman in 2004 as well as in -A Q Yes. Noble and Mr. who we see here in some of the 2006 messages. Stevenson what particular knowledge they would 53 . -. Do you know with regard to Mr.or similar to what Mr.52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lake. Q How many people work for SPS in Salt Lake contact with? A Q Probably 25 or 30. And then you also referenced Dustin Stevenson.that's just my knowledge. Stevenson was doing in 2006? A Q Yes. Noble would have been reporting to Mr. And I think you testified you believe he may have been involved in the 2004 case as well? A Q He may have. that he was Q So is it fair to say that Mr. And where do you get that information in that department at that time.

Peterson have worked for SPS? A Q In 2004. I believe. the file. extensive I believe they actually were assigned As well as John Peterson. Q A Where was Mr. Q And what time frame would Mr. When a case such as this is in litigation and also being serviced by SPS.53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have with regard to the '04 and '06 cases? A knowledge. Are there any other Bank of New York management-level employees or agents with knowledge of the 2004 and 2006 actions that we haven't already discussed? A Q Not that I would know for sure. They would have detailed. Peterson assigned? He was also in the contested foreclosure That one. but I don't think he's with the company anymore. I'm not a hundred group. percent sure of. is there any contact with an employee of Bank of New York at any time in 54 . Is there some other document. Okay. some other writing that references the identity of other SPS employees who would have had knowledge of the '04 and '06 cases? A Q Not that I know of.

that allowed SPS to speak for the Bank of New York. and correct me if I'm wrong. such as the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. correct? A Q Yes. correct? 55 . Do you know or can you tell from what you have here today whether anybody with Bank of New York knows that the 2004 and 2006 cases are pending? A Q A Q No. that you thought there was a document.54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a typical matter? A Q It's not common to do so. Do you know if there's any document that sets forth when SPS is supposed to tell Bank of New York what's going on with its own cases? A Q I don't know that either. And I believe you testified. You can't say or you don't know? I don't know. Do you know if anybody with the Bank of New York is aware that there's a judgment against it? A Q I don't know. You thought there might be a document that allowed SPS to act for NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida.

Q When I speak of "standing. meaning whether or not it owned the note and mortgage at the time the foreclosure was filed. so let's move to four. All right. area of inquiry four.three is going to take a little while. which is page two of Exhibit 1. Have you had a chance to look at area of inquiry four? A Q Yes. You don't have that here today? No.55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q That's correct. 56 . I can say that there's no recorded document showing that date. And you don't have any other documents that set forth in any way the relationship between the Bank of New York and SPS? A Q That's correct." I'm referring to with regard to topic four as to whether or not the bank had standing to file the foreclosure. Do you agree that the Bank of New York lacked standing to file the 2004 case? A Q Can you be more specific on your question? Do you agree that the Bank of New York did not own the note and mortgage at the time it filed the 2004 case? A Well. Let's -.

Let me show you what I'll mark as Exhibit 8. Q Do you agree that the bank's lack of standing doomed its case from the outset? A Q No. Do you agree that the lack of standing was straightforward? A Q clear? A Q A No. KOWALSKI: Q Let me ask you to turn to page 19 of Have you read Exhibit 8? 57 .) BY MR. Why not? Because of the overlapping of dates and I don't know.56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what "standing" means for purposes of topic four. which is the brief that was filed by the bank in the '04 case. A No. Do you agree that the bank lacked standing to file the 2004 case? A Q It appears that way. it's not clear that it was straightforward. Do you agree that the lack of standing was the obvious issues with the assignment chain. (Exhibit 8 was marked for identification.

" 58 . and I'll point you to And you can read all of Exhibit 8 if I'm also going to ask you to read page where it appears. no. paragraph. So what is this document? When was taken before the First District Court of Appeal in the 2004 case. no.the first paragraph on page 19 that includes the highlighted portion. This was the bank's appellate brief in the This is the bank's position that it has Exhibit 8. A Q A Q Okay. that it states. the first -. eight. In And I'll ask you to read the first full other words. A Q Okay. "Again. . including the highlighted portion. that issue was straightforward and clear. I'm just talking about for you. Q '04 case. you don't have to read it out That starts on page 18? loud.57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this . And the sentence. . you need to. Right. "While there was a standing issue. A Q Below the highlighted portion? No. A Okay. this testimony" -No.

essentially doomed the bank's case from the outset. Could I take a minute and talk to Eric again? Q Absolutely. The foreclosure . there were other attorneys involved. A Q Meaning the '04? Meaning the lack of standing in the 2004 And to read into the record the section I had you read on page 19 of Exhibit 8 where the bank states.58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case. Q A This brief was filed September of '07. A Okay. "In fact. this 2004/2006. . Okay. and. The fellow sitting to your left. and instead filed the 2006 case. . I just wasn't sure how far back we I know that back in 2004 were. Signature page is at the end.) 59 ." A Q A Q Who wrote this? Your lawyers. the issue of whether the bank had standing to bring the suit was a substantial issue. The bank conceded as much when it declined the court-granted option to amend its complaint a second time. while straightforward. having remedied the glaring standing problem. (Short break.

and I don't know if that makes it doomed or straightforward or glaring.I don't -.with the words in here of "straightforward" and "glaring" and "doomed" because I'm not an attorney. there's issues with an assignment chain. Q Why not? 60 .Exhibit 8? Yes.I don't want to say yes to those words. And have you had a chance to both look at We're back. And there's a lot of And delinquencies on her end of the contract. KOWALSKI: Q A Q Okay. I just -.59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. Okay. I appears to be an assignment chain issue. -. Okay.I feel like there And. Exhibit 8 and talk to Mr. Reed about -A Q A Q Yes. I have.I can see that there was a contract here between two parties. so I don't really know what impact that has. Do you agree that the position that the bank has taken in the appeal is that the lack of standing was straightforward? A I'm going to say I'm not comfortable with -. I just -. So I'll just say that I -. mean.

I don't know the specific person that approved that. specifically including but not limited to all employees or agents of the Bank of New York with knowledge that the bank's lack of standing was glaring. to testify to the decision to pursue the foreclosure in the '04 case. So what I want to know from you is who at the bank or who at SPS approved the filing of the 2004 case with knowledge that the bank's lack of standing was glaring. I have asked in topic four that the bank designate a person. Q Well. I don't -.60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Because. Who from SPS approved the filing of the '04 case knowing that the bank's lack of standing was straightforward and clear? And who from SPS approved the filing of the foreclosure knowing that lack of standing doomed the case from the outset? A I don't know that person. straightforward and clear and that the bank's case was doomed from the outset. who happens to be you. 61 . And I have taken those words from the bank's own position that it is advocating right now before the First District Court of Appeal. Q But that's what you're here to testify to.I don't understand them well enough to feel like I can say that.

Like I said. but I don't know if that constitutes a lack of standing. I'm taking 62 . and define lack of Lack of ownership of the standing as I did before. Can I ask why not? Can I ask why the bank picked you when you don't know the answer to the topic or to the question? A Q I don't -. Q Let me go back. then.I don't know. Does that definition help at all in Do you agree that the bank's answering topic four? lack of ownership of the note and mortgage was clear at the time it filed the 2004 case? A I'll say lack of proof of ownership.61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I don't know the answer. note and mortgage at the time the foreclosure was filed. I can see that there is assignment chain issues. Do you agree with the statement that the bank lacked standing to file the 2004 case? A I just don't know. That's what I can answer to. Q Do you agree that the bank's lack of proof of ownership was glaring when it filed the 2004 case? A Can you tell me when you say "glaring" what that means? Q I haven't the foggiest idea.

-.with those questions? I disagree with -.62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it directly from your employer.with it because of the fact that there's a mortgage contract. I do.doomed the case from the outset? A Q A Q A I can't personally say that. I'm using your words. in effect. so that in my opinion I cannot say that this is doomed from the outset based on a possible assignment chain issue. since you're here as the Bank of New York. 63 . and there's two parties involved. And the simple fact is that payments aren't being made. I'm taking it from your employer's position that it is currently advocating in the First District Court of Appeal. Do you disagree -Yeah. Q So you're categorizing the assignment chain issue as a possible issue at the beginning of the 2004 case? A I don't know when it was the issue. Q Do you disagree that the bank's lack of proof of ownership was -. if it was the 2004 case or 2006. I personally can't say if I feel it was glaring. A Well.

again. as opposed to something that's set in concrete as is suggested by Exhibit 8. 2004. Let's take it. yes. when the lis pendens was filed in the 2004 case? A Q Yes. But you've characterized the lack of proof of ownership as an issue. Yes? Yes. is that your testimony? your testimony the lack of proof of ownership was not clear as of July 17.63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Well. 2004. An issue that wasn't clear as of July 17. correct? A Q A Q Uh-huh. 2004. is it 2004. In other words. When is it that you believe the lack of proof of ownership arose? A Q Well. to the second sentence in topic four where I ask for the identity 64 . with 2004. Okay. And you're testifying. we've already looked at the lis pendens in the 2004 case showing that the lis pendens was filed on July 17. that's my testimony. on behalf of the Bank of New York? A Q Yes. is that correct? A Q Uh-huh. yes. then.

which you've defined as the lack of proof of ownership of the note and mortgage.64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Bank of New York employees or agents responsible for approving the filing of the amended complaint. you are not able to identify the Bank of New York employees or agents responsible for approving the filing of the amended complaint. amended notice of lis pendens and motion for summary judgment after having actual knowledge the bank's lack of standing was glaring and straightforward and clear and that the bank's case was doomed from the outset. understanding your testimony. is that correct? A Q That's what it appears to be to me. straightforward and clear and that the bank's case was doomed from the outset because you disagree that the lack of standing. your testimony. And I'm going to give you plenty of time But as I'm I think I understand to clarify it if I'm getting this wrong. A Q Okay. And that's because it's your testimony that the lack of proof of ownership was not clear as 65 . amended notice of lis pendens and motion for summary judgment after having actual knowledge the bank's lack of standing what glaring. was not clear from the outset. yes.

we'll get into that in a second. 2004. And we've already gone over the 2006 case with regard to whether the bank owned the note when the 2006 case was filed. it's your testimony that the issue is unclear to you as you sit here on behalf of the bank? A Q That's correct. when the lis pendens was filed? A Q Yes. So it's not your testimony that the issue is clear against the bank. You don't know based on the assignments that you have in front of you. that's what it appears to me.65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of July 17. correct? A Q Correct. because your testimony appears to be based in part on your understanding that there is a contract between two parties and that payments were not made according to that contract. Okay. 66 . A Q Yes. Do you understand that it's only the party You believe that to be true? that owns the contract that can enforce the contract? A The servicer. and that's your testimony. Let me go back to some comments that you made a little while ago.

And you agree that that's completely independent of whether or not payments are being made in accord with the contract? A Q three. correct? A Q Yes. So the servicer's ability to enforce the note and mortgage rests entirely on whether the entity into whose shoes it is stepping owns the note and mortgage at that time. You agree that the servicer steps Correct. Let's. Again. it's only the entity that owns the note and owns the contract that gets to enforce it.on behalf of the entity that owns the into the shoes of the entity for which its servicing the note and mortgage. correct? A Q Yes.66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And the servicer. correct? A Q Yes. yes. Yes. go to topic 67 . Okay. -. then. All right. if they have the legal authority to do so -A Q contract? A Q Yes.

) BY MR. are you aware that there is or was an issue with regard to a payment made to the prior servicer on Ms.67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. And tell me what you understand that issue to involve. You're aware that that issue arose? Yes. Okay. Leetham. KOWALSKI: And let me just go off the record just a second. Let's actually start with the Do you see second clause of that topic which relates to review of the payment disputes with the prior servicer. And let me ask you first off. Williams's behalf by a city welfare agency? A Q A Q Yes. 68 . as well as all reviews of the payment history and payment disputes with the prior servicer undertaken by employees or agents of Bank of New York. KOWALSKI: Q Okay. Okay. we are going to turn now to the payment history for the subject loan including but not limited to payments made to the prior servicer by Ms. that? A Q Yes. Ms. (Short break. if you could. Williams.

where should was an agency that Ms. So it was an amount that she did owe. and that's what they intended to do. amount received. Williams purportedly understood. It's my understanding that there We'll start broad and then we'll kind of How much would you like me -. they applied it as one monthly payment and the remaining to escrow. which had been advanced on her behalf. Williams contacted. Q Is there anything in your review that suggested that the city agency understood the same thing that Ms. which is that the partial amount would be accepted as two full payments? A Well. A Okay. there's actually a contact history note that said that they were sending 882. A I start? Q narrow it. apparently. And that wasn't the 69 .68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 payments. as a second payment. which would have been two payments. They sent an amount that was short of two It was $822. but it was not applied as she thought it was going to be. And that's what she thought it was. And when the payment came in to the prior servicer. and they agreed to pay two months worth of payments.

Q I can tell you we were produced 43 pages of what appear to be contact notes starting at Bates 65 -A we go. a contact history. Said they requested that we fax them a letter stating that we will accept $882 from them. From NationsCredit? 70 . Said the person that's Advised working with her is Paulette Mitchell. I'm sorry." Q And to be clear. Here You're on 107? Yes. . okay. Q A Q A -.69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Where do you find that? Let me see. Williams I will give her a call. At the beginning of the contact history .this was -. . You've got -. All right. Yes. is this a payment history from a NationsCredit servicer? A Q A Q A contact history note.oh. Williams left a message on my voice mail requesting that I call her with two payments. "Ms. On February 6th of 2002 the system note from the prior servicer says. Mrs. Hold on. 107.and ending at 107.

And you're reading from Bates Plaintiff's letter referenced as being faxed was ever sent? A Q I don't know if that ever happened. but it says "note. Maybe it was just a separate letter. Q Can you tell whether or not in looking at NationsCredit's servicing notes whether there is a way to tell if a letter was generated? A Q No.70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107? A Q That's correct. That's a possibility. All I ever saw was this note. would say "letter" if they were going to generate a letter. A No." "note. I mean. That's all I could find. Is there any indication that the A Q A Q Yes. Is there anything in the history or servicing that was transferred to SPS that reflects a letter being sent? A No. But I don't know. This is before SPS took over servicing? Yes. I understand you may not be familiar with their system." "note. Okay." And maybe it All these say "note" on the type. if they sent 71 .

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one. Q Okay. And then what's the entry that's

farther up at 7:48 a.m. that begins "left a message"? A "Left a message on Ms. Mitchell's voice

mail with Mental Health and Welfare Agency stating we will accept the assistance." Q A And then there's a note that follows on -"I left my number for her to call." It And

it just says she'll accept the assistance.

doesn't state in that note that it will be applied in any particular way. Q And then there's a note just above that on

March 13, 2002? A "Maker," which is the mortgagor, "called And

in, verified everything, and then hung up."

then, "follow up with one and a third payment by the end of the month, April and May. Request

Ms. Williams pay additional fee by June." Q A Q If you could, turn to Plaintiff's 98. Okay. And there's a notation there of 6/20/2003

at 3:24 p.m. by J-o-h-n P-e-t. A Q Yes. Do you see that?

72

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q the note? A Q Yes. There is a reference there, and it begins Uh-huh. Would this have been after SPS took over

after the notation 7 slash 1. A Q A Uh-huh. Can you read that? Yes. First let me just say that this is a

contact history note where John Peterson received a voice mail from Ms. Williams. to this, please. Let me just read up

He advised that he may be able to

waive some fees to make up for the error that NationsCredit made by promising to post her 822 to two payments when it was only enough for one. "Advised that most of these fees aren't waiveable because they're justified, but I will work on waiving the 434.81 interest on advances and the 126.28 for late fees. Advised her that she needs to

be aware that this is a six-month forbearance to review" -- oh, "if it is approved there will be a balloon payment at the end, and the expectation is that she will cure that with her settlement. said okay." Q Can you tell from either that note on She

73

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff's 98 -- and I'll either go through and attach these individual pages or we'll do it another time. Obviously I couldn't copy the entire thing

because I wasn't sure which pages you would be looking at or referring me to or bringing other documents. Can you tell from either that entry on Bates stamp 98 or from any of these other entries whether or not either NationsCredit or SPS resolved the question of whether NationsCredit made an error by promising to post the 822 to two payments? A error. I think that everyone assumes there was an They -- they agree that $822 came in; it was However, there was

intended to be for two payments.

some kind of breakdown in the communication of how to apply the payments, and the loan transferred to Fairbanks Capital Corp. shortly thereafter. So that

communication that was given to NationsCredit did not transfer over. But as soon as Fairbanks Capital

Corp. heard about it, they were willing to work with her and waive some fees and make up for it. And she

did still get the credit for that amount of money in her -- paying down her escrow. It wasn't that it

was rejected or sent back or anything else; it went to one payment and paid down her escrow advance

74

Exhibit 6? Yes. Q A Q A Q Okay. Let's -. A Then she would have only been 30 days. I understand you've testified to the fact that SPS did something after the fact. the transaction date.let me ask you.74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 balance. what would have been the status on the loan? A Q If that would have been two payments -In other words. to tell us that? A I'm looking at the payment due date. . but almost 60 days. And you're pointing to the KLT? KLT. Q If the payments had been accepted in February of '02? A Q Yes. Okay. in February 2002. But let me ask you to put yourself in the shoes of NationsCredit as of the date that you referenced before. late at that point. Exhibit 6. and the effective date of that 75 . uh-huh. if they had done what apparently was agreed . If NationsCredit had accepted these two payments as full payment. And what are you looking at on the KLT. . though.

what are you looking at to tell you what the status is? A I'm looking at the payment due date on the far left column. it paid the December 1st. Q A Q A Q And what page are you looking at? Page two.how that leads to the rest of what you just said. 2002? Yes. A Okay. Q A Due for February 1st. it would have then been due for February 1st of 2002. '01 payment. they applied a second payment. it would have been due for the January -.75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $822 check. yes. The $822 being applied to one Had payment. And when the loan transferred to Fairbanks Capital.or it would have paid the January 1 of '02 payment. And assuming that was all posted properly. And you're seeing the 822 being received and posted as of 2/25/2002. it would have been. Okay. Q And tell us again how that -. is that correct? A Q Yes. 76 . Two of the KLT? Yes.

That line is put between the 3/18/2002 and the 4/10/2002 space.76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q And when was the loan transferred to SPS? April 2nd. 2002. and so when SPS took it over. And FCC is Fairbanks? Yes. but I don't know that right off. if the payment had been properly allotted it would have been due for February 1? A Q Uh-huh. April 1st. And there's not a date there. Williams would have then not been shown as paying March 1." A Q Yes. you have a handwritten note here that says "boarded.Ms. somewhere. A Yes. it would have been 60 days? 77 . FCC slash SPS. Because the date was I believe April I have it. 2002. Okay. Now. Q A Q Okay. And boarded is the technical term for when servicing began? A Q A Q Yes. She -. It's written down 2nd. Okay. So when the loan was boarded by SPS.

What do you -. 106. And then it looks like contact was On page made when she called in on -. and with the contact with Ms." That's all talking about us trying to 78 . do you know what happened in between the time that NationsCredit improperly allocated the 822. Williams? A From what I learned through the contact history.what do you mean? Do I know what happened with NationsCredit? Q Yes. Now. it looked to me as though maybe they didn't -. And there were attempts to Even a video contact her which were unsuccessful.nobody realized that it hadn't been applied the way Ms. -. you'll see where it says "Phase 1A. Plaintiff's 106. including Ms. Williams intended. was sent to her to encourage her to call in.77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q That's correct. 2002? A Yes. until after the loan came over to Fairbanks Capital. Q A And you're reading on 107? Yes. with SPS. Williams.let's see. Do you know what happened with NationsCredit. assuming that they did -A Q Yes.and the next payment that's shown on April 30.

Q And that apparently was received on April 26th. So they -. And I believe. Troy Noble created a breakdown here for a forbearance plan to be prepared by the attorney. as you look at the top. which it was. it looks like there was a promise to pay a Western Union -. from what I read. And I believe. And the $900 was to be used for the down payment. And it looks like Troy Noble was assigned the account at that time. And I know at that time she was still concerned with the 822." stands for. Mortgagor 1 is what M1 Let's see. it was. that she felt 79 .78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 find a good working phone number to get ahold of her. 2002. "M1 called in. she called in. Yes. 2002. Q What is the entry for 4/26/2002 that references a promise to pay? A Oh. On April 29th.we received a signed forbearance agreement and the down payment. And then a letter was sent to her letting her know that it was going to be referred to foreclosure. according to the KLT? A Yes.a Western Union representative called in to get the code city for a $900 promise to pay. And then it looks like she called in.

before we get to there. If you understand the From NationsCredit? Yes. Q Well. "verified everything"? A Oh. What -. something like that. "MKR." So it sounds to me like a verbal arrangement was made. ma'am. on Plaintiff's 107. the mortgagor. April and May. A Yes." means maker. have you been able to decipher the two notes on 3/13? A Q A read them? Q Right. The first one.which ones? Do you want me to abbreviation. do you know what the NationsCredit person intended to say by referencing. "called in. Q Well.79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that she didn't get credit for that money that came in. Williams. Q And how do you know that? 80 . just made sure she was speaking to She verified her address and maybe Ms. verified everything and then hung up. four digits of her Social Security number. "follow up with one and a third payment by the end of month." Then.

16. after this 822 payment is referenced. that the call will start out saying everything is verified. Do you know what that relates to? That is the portion of the $822 that was The brackets applied to her outstanding balance. But that's I guess I don't know a hundred percent. mean that it was a credit to her balance of paying it down. A Q A Yes. there's an escrow advance activity noted of 396. And what is that cost for? 81 . what you'll see in a lot of contact history. Q And then the inspection that's referenced on 4/10/2002 would have then been something that SPS would have done? A Q A Q Yes. way. That would be my assumption.80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A It's just servicing lingo. Q In the KLT. So it went from $1. they made it a payment and escrow.053 that she owed in So they split it up that escrow down to 657. And is that referenced as a cost of 1135? Yes.34 on that same day. I guess to verify you're talking to the person before you give personal information.

makes sure. whether or not it's vacant or occupied. but in the system there is a little space for that comment. just gets a look at it to let us know. Report? It would be in the system. On another screen? Yes.yes. show -.well. I haven't ever seen the actual paper report that comes in. takes a look at the property. And it just is somebody that drives by.81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is? A Well. reported for inspection. you know. which when it came over to us was 90 days delinquent. it's a whole path of things to an A That cost is for a loan that is in a delinquent status. Do you know what the name of that screen 82 . And it wouldn't be in the But it does contact history. I don't believe. it shows property inspection. Q A Q A Q I'm just asking about the actual report. it hasn't been vandalized. It's -. you're right. Q Do you show a reference for the report for this date of 4/10/2002? A Not on the KLT. you know. Q Is there a report that's actually physically generated? A Yes.

2002. this loan was being reported as being 90 days past due. leaving Ms. Just call property inspections and you can view if there's a list of them and see what date they were completed.82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inspection report screen. Let's assume that NationsCredit had allocated the 822 to two full payments. so it would have been treated the same way.correct me if I'm wrong. is that correct? A Q Yes. treated a little differently prior to being referred 83 . it is referred to foreclosure. but it appears as though that when this loan was sold. Williams due for February 1. Q Okay. Would the loan have been reported or boarded differently for SPS? Would it have started out with a different department? A It would have been less delinquent. As I'm -. it would have been 60 days. or when the servicing was taken over by SPS -we talked about the questions about when it was sold. a loan in default. I mean. Q Is a loan in default at 60 treated differently than a loan in default at 90? A Well. but when the servicing was taken over by SPS. typically at day 92 a loan is So a loan at 60.

you're right. actually. Might have been in Hatboro. Q Okay. and 60-day accounts. 30 and 60. let me You referenced the to foreclosure. yeah.83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City. Is that what you meant? Does it actually start in a different department when it's boarded by SPS? A Q A Yes. Q A Q And it's called primary collections? Uh-huh. yes.well. What department would it have started in? The primary collections that are based They have the 30 here in Jacksonville. for example? A Oh. And it's called primary collections? A Q Yes. Does SPS use the 92 days as its guidelines for foreclosure regardless of whether or not the 84 . And then what department did it go to at 90? A That would be loan resolution in Salt Lake ask you another question first. And those back in '02 would have been here in Jacksonville as opposed to Hatboro. 92 days. Q Right. Q Do you know whether or not -.

Yes. 2002. April 25th. There's a reference here on April Skip U-I-L letter? 85 . Q Okay. I'm sorry. Regardless of whether that particular rule Does Fairbanks adopt applies to this particular note? A different." Okay. Is that the Phase 1? The one that says "sent skip letter. that for all of its servicing? A Q Yes. Williams after SPS took over the case. took over the servicing? A The first letter that was sent to her was on April 25th. 2002. I'm sorry. Do you show when the next letter The first letter. the HUD rules relating to a foreclosure not supposedly needing to start until 90 days past due. Q A Q A Q A Q And where do you show that? On Plaintiff's 106. trying to get an updated phone number. Okay.84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPA rules apply to a particular note? A Q Which -The HUD rules. I don't know when the rules would be would have been sent? would have been sent to Ms.

yes. At that point. And the original collateral is the original note and mortgage? A Q A Q Yes.85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 at the bottom of 106 that the original documents were requested. the holder of the actual collateral." 86 ." very bottom of 106? A Q Uh-huh. Q Is there anything in these documents to tell us who that was? A Q No. "Please provide the original Do you see that at the collateral to the FC R-E-P.m. physical file. where would the original It says "request. does that include the chain of assignments? A Q Supposed to. to "FC title ordered through F-A-T-C-O. And the reason I ask for that is that there is a reference on April 24 at 8:15 a. It most likely was from what we call the custodian. it says requested. When the collateral is requested." loan documents have come from? Request -A Yeah. Is that correct? Yes.

Q He was just ordering a title. It would be shorter depos if we could. sorry. those documents? MR.86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Yes. So as you sit here today. is the result of this request somewhere in SPS's documents? A It would have been in the foreclosure file And I don't know held by that foreclosure attorney. Did that transfer over to He can't really answer any questions.Rusty H. updated title. in other words. REED: I don't know. -. company any longer. Is the title itself. What does that mean? Foreclosure title was ordered through That is -. THE WITNESS: you. Oh. the result of this order -A Q Uh-huh. Or maybe they'd be longer. I'm not sure which. is a foreclosure representative. He's not with the First American Title Company. if we have a copy of that file or not. do you know what original collateral and what title documents were 87 .from First American Title Company.

the truth in Let's see. And the lending disclosure. or they're supposed to be.87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 received by SPS in April 2002? A documents. No. Q Would you expect the title search to have revealed the assignments? A Q I would guess so. A I mean. who with SPS is supposed to look at the original documents and the foreclosure title? Who in this case was supposed to actually read the things? A Q A Q A I think that was the foreclosure attorney. I don't know if it shows it in here. in Florida they're all recorded. but typically it's the original The note. any riders. but I would assume so. Does it show who that would be? It was Echevarria. I don't know if that's state-specific or if that's something that everybody records. Q In SPS's review process. Q Can you tell if the original collateral 88 . Whoever SPS hired? Yes. title is just an updated title search to make sure it's clear. I believe. I -- I mean. the mortgage.

but they could. whatever you want to. They could request a copy. I think that's It's ten to one. MR. In the normal course. And based on the witness's THE WITNESS: MR. as opposed to conclude. All right. is it up to the foreclosure attorney. MR. this deposition. If it's ordered -I don't know if you want to read or waive in part. Q Do you know in the normal course? I'm not asking about this case. KOWALSKI: a good point. I will probably order it. to review the title and the original collateral and the assignments to confirm proof of ownership? A Yes. REED: Do you want to wait to order it until we conclude this last part or do you want to order it now? What do you think? 89 . then. we are going to adjourn.88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the foreclosure title ever passes through SPS on the way to the foreclosure attorney or whether SPS gets a copy at the same time that the originals are sent to the foreclosure attorneys? A It's not typical. Okay. KOWALSKI: testimony with regard to topics one and two and four.

m.) (Whereupon. (Witness excused. the rest of it in my head.I'll wait.89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. I'll keep make the decision at the end. at 12:53 p.) - 90 . the taking of the deposition was adjourned. KOWALSKI: I typically order just to help my memory more than anything else. That way you can Okay. I'll wait. but I -.

STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF DUVAL ) CERTIFICATE OF OATH 91 . I. Registered Merit Reporter. and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large. Henderson. Katharine M. do hereby certify that MINDY LEETHAM was duly sworn by me on January 15.90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Katharine M. RMR and Notary Public State of Florida at Large DD 631109 My commission expires: 03/17/2011 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 6th day of February 2008. Henderson. 2008.

Henderson. Katharine M. employee. Registered Merit Reporter.91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Katharine M. or counsel of any of the parties. attorney. I further certify that I am not a relative. Henderson. nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action. nor am I financially interested in the action. RMR 22 23 24 25 DATED this 6th day of February 2008. STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF DUVAL ) REPORTER'S DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE 92 . I. certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the deposition of MINDY LEETHAM and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

numbered 1 through 91. have this date read the foregoing pages of my deposition. these constitute a true and accurate transcription of my deposition given on the 15th day of January 2008. E R R A T A STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DUVAL S H E E T .92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PG # 8 ____ 9 10 11 ____ 12 13 14 ____ 15 16 17 ____ 18 19 20 ____ 21 22 23 24 25 MINDY LEETHAM Date: _______________ ____ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ____ ___________________________________ ____ ___________________________________ LN # CHANGE: I. MINDY LEETHAM. the undersigned deponent. at the time and place stated therein. and with the suggestions noted below. if any.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful