United States District Court For Distric PDF

19-10843-scc Doc 159-2 Filed 09/25/19 Entered 09/25/19 15:47:23 Exhibit 1 to
Declaration of James Heron Pg 1 of 53
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:17-cv-03084-PAB-STV Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL, )

)
Plaintiff ) Civil Action No.
)
v. ) Filed In Camera and Under Seal
)
DEFENDANTS UNDER SEAL, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS

UNDER 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ET SEQ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, ex rel. ) Civil Action No.
)
JAMES HERON, ) False Claims Act Violations
)
Plaintiff-Relator, ) COMPLAINT
)
v. ) Filed In Camera and Under Seal
)
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, AURORA ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BANK FSB, AURORA COMMERCIAL CORP., )
as successor to Aurora Bank FSB, NATIONSTAR )
MORTGAGE LLC, MEDVED DALE DECKER )
& DEERE, LLC, DALE & DECKER, LLC, )
TONI MARIE OWAN, HOLLY RYAN, )
JENNIFER L. REYNOLDS, PENNY DIETRICH- )
SMITH, and JAMIE G. SILER, )
)
Defendants. )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................1
II. Parties ..............................................................................................4
A. Plaintiff-Relator ..............................................................................................4
B. Defendants ..............................................................................................5
III. Jurisdiction and Venue ..............................................................................................7
IV. Conditions Precedent ..............................................................................................7
V. Defendants’ Initial Frauds, Forgeries and Perjuries ............................................................8
A. Defendants’ 2008 and 2009 Attempted Foreclosures ............................................11
B. The December 2010 Bankruptcy Court Proceeding ..............................................12
C. The March 2011 Foreclosure Proceeding ..............................................................13
D. The 2012 Proceedings ............................................................................................14
VI. Relator’s Independent Investigation ..................................................................................21
A. Relator Located Lorraine Dodson, the Original Endorser, Who Confirmed

that Neither She Nor the Previous Servicer of Relator’s Loan Affixed
the Handwritten Endorsement to Aurora Loan Services. ......................................21
B. Defendants’ Numerous Other Uses of the Same Handwritten Endorsed

Forged Notes of Which Defendants Denied Having Knowledge ..........................22
C. Defendants’ Use of Forged and Fraudulent “Blank” Notes and Allonges ............25
D. Defendants’ Flagrant Frauds and Forgeries Continue to This Day .......................27
E. The Barcode Labelling System Used by Countrywide/Bank of America

Further Evidences Defendants’ Frauds and Forgeries ...........................................28
VII. Defendants’ False Claims
A. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Programs

Established Thereunder ..........................................................................................30
3
B. Aurora and Nationstar Claim HAMP and Other Incentives/Funding ....................33
1. The HAMP Program ..................................................................................33
2. Defendants Committed Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

Violations ............................................................................................36
3. Violations of FHA Quality Control Requirements – Failure to

Implement an FHA-Compliant Quality Control Program .........................27
4. Aurora’s and Nationstar’s False Certifications ..........................................41
5. Failure by Aurora and Nationstar to Self-Report .......................................41
C. Defendants’ Conduct is Worse than Robo-Signing ...............................................42
COUNT I – Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(D) ..............................................43
COUNT II – Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) .............................................45
Prayer for Relief ............................................................................................47
Request for Trial by Jury ............................................................................................48
4
COMPLAINT FOR FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS

UNDER 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ET SEQ.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff-Relator James Heron (“Heron” or “Relator”) brings this qui tam action
pursuant to the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et seq., to recover
damages and civil penalties from Defendants Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Aurora Bank FSB,
Aurora Commercial Corp., as successor to Aurora Bank FSB, Nationstar Mortgage LLC,
Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC, Dale & Decker, LLC, Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni M.N.
Dale), Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker), Jennifer L. Reynolds (f/k/a Jennifer L. Reynolds),
Penny Dietrich-Smith, and Jamie G. Siler (collectively, the “Defendants”)1 on behalf of the
United States of America (“United States” or “Government”).
2. Aurora and Nationstar wrongfully obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in
government incentive payments by fraudulently submitting claims and inducing the United
States to execute mortgage servicer incentives contracts to allow Aurora and Nationstar to
participate and recover incentives in the Treasury Department’s Home Affordable
Modification Program (“HAMP”) and other Government programs designed to keep
borrowers in their homes and avoid foreclosure. At the time they made the representations and
warranties required to obtain such funding, and in each subsequent year since, Aurora and
Nationstar and have mirepresented their compliance with all applicable laws relating to
foreclosure practices.
1
Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Aurora Bank FSB, and Aurora Commercial Corp., as
successor to Aurora Bank FSB, are referred to herein as “Aurora”; Nationstar Mortgage LLC as
“Nationstar”; and Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC, Dale & Decker, LLC, Toni Marie Owan,
Holly Ryan, Jennifer L. Reynolds, Penny Dietrich-Smith, and Jamie G. Siler are collectively
referred to as the “Law Firm Defendants”.
1
3. By continuing to submit to Fannie Mae, the financial agent for the United States
under HAMP, false Annual Certifications and misrepresentations of past, present and future
compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, rules and requirements – all while
engaging in the fraud and forgeries described herein – Aurora and Nationstar continue to
submit false claims for incentive payments under HAMP and induce the Government to make
payments it otherwise would not have made.
4. Relator’s independent investigation – conducted during and since his foreclosure
ordeal with Defendants – uncovered that before, while and after Aurora and Nationstar were
paid millions by the Government in exchange for the promise to help homeowners avoid
foreclosure through loan modifications, they simply claimed the incentive money and did
precisely the opposite of what they promised.
5. Specifically, rather than work to prevent foreclosures and facilitate loan
modifications for borrowers – or even simply comply with applicable foreclosure laws –
Aurora and Nationstar – together with the aiding and abetting and conspiracy of the Law Firm
Defendants – have committed blatant fraud in executing foreclosure filings, forging signatures
on promissory notes, submitting forged promissory notes to numerous state and federal courts
and committing fraud upon the courts, governmental authorities and homeowners and
borrowers. In doing so, Defendants have criminally forged and fraudulently misrepresented
thousands of promisory notes to illegally initiate foreclosures and increase their profits.
6. Defendants’ forgeries and frauds are blatant. Relator has uncovered hundreds of
examples where Defendants have submitted the same promissory note for the same property
in multiple foreclosure proceedings and to multiple courts and other government authorities –
except those same promissory notes carry different signature endorsements. Defendants have
2
either whited-out and re-photocopied, or created promissory notes in order to forge whatever
endorsements they need to then “certify” to the courts or other governmental authorities that
the forged note constitutes a “true and correct” copy of the note evidencing ownership.
Defendants’ actions are no different than someone whiting out the payee on a check, writing
in their own name, and going to cash it at the bank.
7. Importantly, when inducing the Government to make incentive payments, Aurora
and Nationstar represented and warranted to the Government that they would assist borrowers
with avoiding foreclosure by offering loan modifications to make borrowers’ mortgage
payments more manageable. Yet in countless cases and filings discovered by Relator,
Defendants’ fraudulent activity made it (and still make it) impossible for Aurora and Nationstar
to fulfill those representations and warranties. This is so for two primary reasons: either Aurora
and Nationstar (1) had already initiated the foreclosure process on borrowers using forged
promissory notes and thus could not legally modify borrowers’ loans because they only
possessed illegal notes; or (2) as servicers of the loans (rather than the owners of the loans),
make more profit by placing homeowners into foreclosure status so that they can collect more
default-related fees. Likewise, the Law Firm Defendants earn more fees when Aurora and
Nationstar skip the loan modification process and march directly to placing homeowners in
foreclosure status
8. Defendants – including specifically, the Law Firm Defendants – have also engaged
in a massive cover-up effort by lying to state and federal judges when confronted with the
possibility that their frauds and forgeries, and otherwise wrongful foreclosures, might be
exposed.
3
9. Defendants have used, and continue to create and use, forged promissory notes on
an enormous scale – both in the years prior to accepting HAMP incentives, since accepting
those HAMP incentive payments, and still today – all the while misrepresenting to the
Government that Aurora and Nationstar were in the past, are currently, and will be in the future
acting in compliance with applicable federal and state laws designed to protect borrowers from
wrongful foreclosures. These misrepresentations were made with the explicit intent to falsely
claim and receive incentive payments under HAMP and other government programs.
10. The use of forged promissory notes illegally placed homeowners into foreclosure
status, stealing the precious time they needed to get their loan payments back on track. The
forgeries also often concealed from the public record the chain of ownership endorsements,
thereby obscuring the identities of the previous and current true owners of the loans. This
rendered useless the later consent orders, foreclosure moratoriums and various government
enforcement efforts intended to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
11. Even worse, homeowners incurred thousands of dollars in added default fees based
on the illegal foreclosures, and thousands of dollars more pursuing HAMP modifications that
they had no chance of ever obtaining. A loan modification is, in part, the modification of the
promissory note. Defendants would never be able to legally modify the promissory notes they
forged.
II. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff-Relator
12. Plaintiff-Relator James Heron brings this action on behalf of himself and the United
States of America, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.
13. Relator is a homeowner who lost his home to a foreclosure through wrongful and
illegal acts – which constitute false claims – of Aurora and Nationstar, who have conspired
4
with the Law Firm Defendants to perpetrate thousands of acts of fraud and forgery and then
attempt to cover up their fraud. Relator has direct and personal knowledge of the fraudulent
scheme described herein, both as it affects him personally and as it affects the Government and
similarly situated borrowers within the State of Colorado and around the country.
B. Defendants
14. Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC is a limited liability company formed under
the laws of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Aurora Loan Services, LLC’s
headquarters is located at 10350 Park Meadows Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80124.
15. Defendant Aurora Bank FSB was a federal savings bank organized under the laws
of Delaware with its headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. Upon information and belief,
Aurora Bank FSB merged with Aurora Commercial Corp. in 2013.
16. Defendant Aurora Commercial Corp. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware
with its headquarters located at 10350 Park Meadows Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80124. Upon
information and belief, Aurora Commercial Corp. is the successor entity to Defendant Aurora
Bank FSB.
17. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its headquarters located at 8950 Cypress Waters Boulevard, Coppell, Texas 75019.
18. Defendant Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business located
at 355 Union Boulevard, Suite 250, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Upon information and belief,
Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC is the law firm with which Defendants Toni Marie Owan
and Holly Ryan.
5
19. Defendant Dale & Decker, LLC is a now-dissolved limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Upon information and belief, Dale &
Decker, LLC was the law firm with which Defendants Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni M.N.
Dale) and Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker) were previously affiliated and/or owned.
20. Defendant Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni M.N. Dale) is a resident of the State of
Colorado. Upon information and belief, Ms. Owan is currently affiliated with Defendant
Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC, where she continues to provide legal services. Ms. Owan
is currently licensed to practice law within the State of Colorado under Registration No. 30580.
Ms. Dale’s last known business address is that of Halliday, Watkins & Mann, P.C., 355 Union
Boulevard, Suite 250, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.
21. Defendant Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker) is a resident of the State of Colorado.
Ms. Ryan is currently listed on the Colorado Bar Association’s website as “retired” under
Registration No. 32647. Ms. Ryan’s last known business address is 98 Wadsworth Blvd., #127-
134, Lakewood, CO 80226
22. Defendant Jennifer L. Reynolds (f/k/a Jennifer L. Hanke) is a resident of the State
of Colorado. At all times relevant, Ms. Reynolds was employed by Defendants Dale & Decker,
LLC and/or Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC, and acted under the direction and supervision
of Defendant Dale & Decker, LLC. At all times relevant, Defendant Reynolds was an
appointed and commissioned notary public in the State of Colorado. Ms. Reynold’s last known
address is 3007 South Mobile Way, Aurora, Colorado 80013.
23. Defendant Penny Dietrich-Smith is a resident of the State of Colorado. Upon
information and belief and at all relevant times, Ms. Dietrich-Smith was employed by
Defendants Dale & Decker, LLC and/or Medved Dale Decker & Deere, LLC. At all times
6
relevant, Ms. Dietrich-Smith was an appointed and commissioned notary public in the State of
Colorado. Ms. Dietrich-Smith’s last known address is 8552 Gold Peak Lane, Unit D,
Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80130.
24. Defendant Jamie G. Siler is a resident of the State of Colorado. Upon information
and belief, Mr. Siler is currently a shareholder with the law firm of Murr Siler & Accomazzo,
P.C. where he continues to provide legal services. Defendant Siler is currently licensed to
practice law within the State of Colorado under Registration No. 31284. Defendant Siler’s last
known business address is that of Murr Siler & Accomazzo, P.C., 410 Seventh Street, Suite
3400, Denver, Colorado 80202.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732, the latter section of which specifically confers jurisdiction
on this Court for actions brought pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729.
26. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants transact the business that is the
subject matter of this lawsuit in the District of Colorado, and Defendants engaged in countless
acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3729 in this District.
IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
27. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., this Complaint is to be filed in camera and
under seal, is to remain under seal for a period of at least 60 days and shall not be served on
Defendants until the Court so orders. Further, the United States of America may elect to
intervene and proceed with the action within the 60-day time period after it receives both the
Complaint and the material evidence submitted to it.
28. The allegations in this lawsuit are not based on prior public disclosure of allegations
or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, lawsuit, or investigation in which
7
the United States Government or its agent is a party, but rather on information obtained by
Relator through his dealings with Defendants and his independent investigation.
29. Relator is an “original source” under the aforementioned statute in that, as a result
of his independent investigation and research, Relator has knowledge that is independent of
and materially adds to any publicly disclosed information relating to the allegations herein.
30. Contemporaneous with filing this Complaint, Relator is serving upon the United
States of America a copy of this Complaint, together with a disclosure setting forth the material
evidence and information he possesses, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).
V. DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL FRAUDS, FORGERIES AND PERJURIES
31. Relator and Defendants have a tortured history with Defendants’ numerous
attempts to foreclose on Relator’s home through illegal means, thus prompting Relator’s
several-year-long investigation into Defendants’ practices. Relator’s investigation reveals that
Defendants have effected foreclosures on hundreds of borrowers in the State of Colorado
alone, as well as borrowers around the nation, using forged – often fake – promissory notes.
32. In separate filings in both state and federal court proceedings over a four-year
period from 2008 through March 2011, Aurora, by itself and through the Law Firm Defendants,
claimed to own Relator’s loan in eleven different documents, purporting to prove such
ownership through handwritten endorsements to “Aurora Loan Services” on various copies of
the Adjustable Rate Note that Relator executed in connection with the purchase of his property
(the “Promissory Note”). Later in 2011, Defendants then filed a copy of the Promissory Note,
but the handwritten endorsement disappeared and Defendants claimed the note was endorsed
in “blank.”
8
33. With increasing suspicion about Defendants’ improper dealings in connection with
his loan,2 Relator researched his documentation and found the disappearing endorsement. He
contested the authenticity of the Promissory Note and Aurora’s ownership of the loan in 2012.
Only then did Aurora change its position and admit it never owned the loan – Aurora’s new
position was that it was only the servicer, and as proof, provided a third version of the
Promissory Note, which was irreconcilable with the others previously submitted to the courts.
This new Promissory Note contains endorsements by entities that never appeared on the
previous versions of the Promissory Note – it did not have the handwritten endorsement to
Aurora; rather, in the exact same place as that handwritten endorsement previously appeared
was a stamped endorsement by “Residential Funding Corporation.” By visual inspection
alone, it proved that Defendants had created a “dummy” Promissory Note so that it appeared
to be endorsed to Aurora, which was necessary for Aurora to establish it was entitled to
foreclose on the property. The endorsements on the three different versions of the Promissory
Note presented by Defendants are as follows:
2
Relator suspected that Defendants were fabricating reasons to keep Relator’s loan in
foreclosure “statuts.” Specifically, by 2010, Relator paid more toward modification plans at the
behest of Aurora than he would have paid making his monthly mortgage payments. Aurora
repeatedly offered attractive loan modification plans, but once Relator made the agreed-upon
payments to effect the modification, Aurora communicated friviolous and untrue reasons to escape
finalizing the promised modification. Aurora was willing to perpetually restart new trial
modification plans so long as Relator agreed, in each instance, to start over with a new increased
monthly mortgage payment, most of which were applied to the fees Aurora was generating by
keeping Relator in foreclosure status. But banks and loan servicers do not “lose” multiple sets of
mortgage documents, give conflicting answers when asked about the amounts owed, reasons for
modification denials, and ownership of a homeowner’s loan – at least not when all connected to a
single borrower’s account. Relator suspected these numerous “errors” could not be an accident
and launched his investigation – his personal crusade to get to the bottom of Defendants’
suspicious activities.
9
34. Despite providing multiple courts the forged handwritten endorsed notes for several
years – all of which are now established as forgeries – not one Defendant admitted to knowing
why these forged Promissory Notes were used, who created them, or where they came from.
Instead, Defendants claimed they had no records or files that could provide answers to these
questions.
35. After the aforementioned proceedings, Relator – through his independent research
– uncovered that Defendants used similarly forged, handwritten endorsements to foreclose on
the properties of hundreds of other borrowers within the State of Colorado. Each of the
additional forgeries that Relator uncovered was also filed by Defendants in foreclosure-related
court filings or submissions to public trustees and other governmental authorities. Nearly all
such forged promissory notes were filed by the Law Firm Defendants on behalf of Aurora or
Nationstar. After Defendants continued to deny knowing anything about the forged
Promissory Notes in Relator’s foreclosure proceeding, Relator then uncovered hundreds of
additional examples of forged promissory notes and evidence to support those forgeries.
Relator has found, and now presents, evidence to establish that Defendants have not only
forged thousands of promissory notes, they later forged additional promissory notes to cover
up their fraud in contested foreclosure proceedings. Defendants have also provided false
testimony, concealed records from borrowers, courts and other governmental entities, and even
perjured themselves when asked about these forgeries.
10
36. Relator’s history with Defendants and the evidence uncovered are best described
through the following timeline:
A. Defendants’ 2008 and 2009 Attempted Foreclosures
37. From 2008 through 2009, Aurora held Relator in perpetual foreclosure while
collecting loan modification payments from him.
38. On April 30, 2008, in the matter of Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. James J. Heron,
Audra L. Heron, et al., Civil No. 08 cv 975, Aurora, through the Law Firm Defendants,
submitted to the Douglas County Public Trustee and the District Court for Douglas County a
Note and Deed of Trust Certification, in which Defendants Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni M.N.
Dale) and Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker) each misrepresented that they were attaching “a
true and correct copy of the evidence of debt.” Attached to the Certification was a copy of the
Promissory Note affixed with a purported “endorsement” from MortgageIT, Inc. to “Aurora
Loan Services, LLC”:
39. Aurora withdrew that foreclosure on September 9, 2009, but re-filed later that
month, on September 29, 2009, in the matter of Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. James J. Heron,
Aura L. Heron, et al., Civil No. 09 cv 3160, where Defendants Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni
M.N. Dale) and Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker) again submitted to the Douglas County
Public Trustee and the District Court for Douglas County a Note and Deed of Trust
11
Certification, in which they each fraudulently misrepresented that they were attaching “a true
and correct copy of the evidence of debt.” Attached to the Certification was a copy of the
Promissory Note affixed with a purported “endorsement” from MortgageIT, Inc. to “Aurora
Loan Services, LLC”:
B. The December 2010 Bankruptcy Court Proceeding
40. In October 2010, having denied Relator’s final attempt at completing a loan
modification, Aurora informed Relator that a foreclosure sale was rescheduled to take place
two weeks later. Relator filed bankruptcy to stop the sale.
41. In December 2010, Aurora, represented by the Law Firm Defendants, was required
to seek relief from the automatic stay due to Relator’s bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. In the matter of In re: James Joseph Heron,
IV, Audra Heron, Case No. 10-38442-HRT, Aurora – through the Law Firm Defendants – filed
its Verified Motion for Relief from Stay, in which Defendant Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni
M.N. Dale) misrepresented to the federal bankruptcy court judge, Relator and the United States
Trustee, that Relator’s loan modification was denied by Aurora because “debtors failed to
return required documents” and further fraudulently misrepresented that evidence of Aurora’s
debt in the form of “a copy of the Promissory Note” was attached.
12
42. Attached to Aurora’s Verified Motion for Relief from Stay was a copy of the
Promissory Note affixed with a purported “endorsement” from MortgageIT, Inc. (Relator’s
original lender) to “Aurora Loan Services, LLC”:
43. This appears to be the same copy of the Promissory Note contained in the 2008,
2009 and 2010 filings by Aurora and the Law Firm Defendants and submitted to the Douglas
County Public Trustee and the Douglas County District Court in connection with Aurora’s
previous attempts to foreclose on Relator’s Property.
C. The March 2011 Foreclosure Proceeding
44. On March 17, 2011, Aurora, represented again by the Law Firm Defendants, filed
a Note & Deed of Trust Certification with the Douglas County Public Trustee and a Verified
Motion for Order Authorizing Sale with the Douglas County District Court. In both of these
filings, Defendant Toni Marie Owan (f/k/a Toni M.N. Dale) represented that attached to those
filings was a “true and correct” copy of the Promissory Note evidencing the debt. This time,
however, the purportedly “true and correct copy” of the Promissory Note contained an entirely
different endorsement. The endorsement no longer endorsed the Promissory Note to “Aurora
Loan Services, LLC,” but rather the Promissory Note was now endorsed in blank:
13
D. The 2012 Proceedings
45. In January 2012, Relator learned from an Aurora “Executive Communications”
employee that Aurora was never going to modify his loan and only delayed its foreclosure
proceedings because of Relator’s multiple complaints. That employee further communicated
to Relator that the “investor was not accepting modifications.” This information caused
Relator to begin his own research into the ownership of his loan and the Promissory Note, as
this was the first time Relator learned his loan might have been securitized and owned by an
entity other than Aurora.
46. By May 2012, Relator’s research revealed that the handwritten endorsement that
appeared on the Promissory Notes submitted in the 2008 and 2009 proceedings detailed above
(Relator was not yet aware of the existence of the Promissory Note used in the 2010
Bankruptcy proceeding) had disappeared from the Promissory Note submitted in the March
2011 Foreclosure Proceeding.
47. By this time, the sum of the circumstances led Relator to believe that Aurora never
owned Relator’s loan and that Aurora and the Law Firm Defendants may not be in possession
of the actual Promissory Note necessary to effect either a loan modification or a legal
foreclosure.
14
48. Relator notified Aurora and the Law Firm Defendants in writing about the
inconsistent endorsements on the purportedly “true and correct” copies of the Promissory
Notes filed with the courts and the Douglas County Public Trustee, but received no response
from either Aurora or the Law Firm Defendants. By separate letter dated April 3, 2012, Relator
also notified the Douglas County Public Trustee of these inconsistencies.
49. In the post-foreclosure eviction proceedings instituted by Aurora and Nationstar, in
a case captioned Aurora Loan Services, LLC/Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Heron, Case No.
12CV1168, in the Douglas County District Court, Relator filed a counterclaim asserting, inter
alia, inconsistences in the Notes presented by Defendants and contesting Nationstar’s standing
to proceed with the eviction.
50. The Law Firm Defendants were replaced by Defendant Jamie Siler (who previously
served as Vice President and in-house counsel for Aurora) as counsel. Siler appeared on
Aurora’s and Nationstar’s behalf and presented to the court yet another version (the third
version) of Relator’s Promissory Note:
15
51. Affixed to this latest version of the Promissory Note, which Siler represented to the
Court as the “original”, was an endorsement from MortgageIT, Inc. to Residential Funding
Corporation and another endorsement from Residential Funding Corporation to Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the asset-backed securitized trust into which
Defendants now claim that Relator’s mortgage was deposited. Also attached was an allonge,
purporting to further endorse the Promissory Note from Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas back to Aurora Loan Services, LLC, so that Defendants could complete the desired
foreclosure. None of Residential Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank or the Allonge itself
had ever appeared on the copy of the Promissory Note submitted to the state or federal courts
or the public trustee in the multiple foreclosure filings by Defendants over the previous four
years.
16
52. The “original note” presented by Siler now contained the never-before-seen
“Residential Funding Corporation” endorsement exactly where the handwritten endorsement
was on the previous versions of the Promissory Note. The only way this could occur is if
someone physically forged a “dummy” version of the Promissory Note in order to alter the
endorsements. The below graphic illustrates the three versions of the Promissory Note’s
endorsements presented by Defendants in five separate court proceedings:
53. Assuming for the moment that Siler’s representation that this “original note” was
true, that representation establishes the frauds perpetrated by the Defendants in the 2008, 2009,
2010 and 2011 proceedings before the Douglas County District Court and the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado.
54. In an attempt to evade explaining these irreconcilable “true and correct” copies of
the Promissory Note, Aurora and Nationstar – through Siler – simply stated to the Court that
such forgeries were:
…irrelevant, it doesn’t matter, mainly because the foreclosure is complete now, but
also because either way the Court looks at it, Aurora was nevertheless entitled to
enforce it. If that note is endorsed in blank and Aurora has physical possession,
Aurora is the holder….
Plaintiff [Nationstar] believes that the prior motions to order authorizing sale …
were withdrawn and no order confirming sale was ever entered in those prior
matters, are not relevant….
… any transfers of, or alleged problems with the promissory note are none of Mr.
Heron’s concern…
55. In other words, Aurora, Nationstar and Siler refused to explain how three separate
versions of the Promissory Note could have been filed in the separate court proceedings. They
17
did not argue that it was legal to fabricate a “dummy” note and apply the wrong endorsement,
nor did they claim it was an “accident.” Siler’s argument did not address the forged notes at
all, but rather claimed it was “irrelevant” as a way to avoid implicating himself, Aurora,
Nationstar or the Law Firm Defendants who committed the fraud and forgeries. This is because
there is no credible way to argue that “dummy” promissory notes could be used legally, nor
would it be believable for Defendants to argue that the forgeries were created accidentally.
Either such claims would be no more believable than someone claiming they accidentally
forged a check, only after it was proven that they created a copy of someone else’s check,
wrote it out to themselves, and cashed it. According to Siler, that is “irrelevant” so long as that
person was owed money by the owner of the check.
56. Stated differently, Defendants did not argue that printing out a copy of the
Promissory Note and writing in an ownership endorsement to Aurora was legal because they
know it is not. Nor did Defendants’ provide any employees or records to establish some sort
of clerical mistake, because that would also not be believable due to the surrounding
circumstances:
• All Defendants profited from the forgeries.
• The forgeries turned worthless documents (photocopies of the Promissory
Note) into what appeared to be a genuine original Promissory Note; the
endorsements were applied in the correct place by someone who knew how
endorsements should appear.
• The endorsement to Aurora Loan Services, LLC was wrong – Aurora never
owned the loan. The forgery was used as “proof” to validate the corresponding
18
false statements that Aurora owned the loan so foreclosure could commence
and Defendants could begin to charge fees.
• Defendants needed the forged endorsement in order to commence foreclosure
proceedings against Relator.
• Defendants took so many steps to personally provide the forged Promissory
Notes to the Public Trustee, and to state and federal court judges in “certified”
and “verified” filings.
• This was not a one-time clerical error; as further detailed herein, Relator’s
independent investigation reveals that Defendants have forged thousands of
other Promissory Notes in foreclosures against other borrowers throughout the
State of Colorado.
57. Given the above circumstances, Defendants’ only resort was to escape answering
questions entirely by claiming no knowledge or records relating to the forgeries. Siler argued
that so long as Aurora, Nationstar and the Law Firm Defendants are “holding” a copy of
evidence that some other entity is the holder of Relator’s debt, they were not required to explain
the note forgeries. This is not what the law requires. Colorado law requires that “the holder
of the mortgage or its attorney may file … a copy of the evidence of debt and a certification
signed and properly acknowledges by the mortgagee or its attorney ‘that the copy of the
evidence of debt is true and correct.’” Nowhere do the Colorado Revised Statutes (or any other
applicable laws) provide that a mortgagee or its attorney may submit manufactured forgeries
of such evidence of debt and nevertheless certify that it is “true and correct” and is later not
required to explain why the forgeries were presented to courts throughout the state.
19
58. Siler takes the position that the forgeries were “irrelevant” because no orders were
granted upon those forgeries. To make this argument, Siler concealed the fact that the
handwritten endorsement note forgery was used to obtain a previous order of foreclosure when
it was filed in 2010 to successfully obtain a Relief from Stay from the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Colorado, which later allowed Aurora to initiate foreclosure. This was
a blatant misrepresentation to the Court and a violation of Siler’s ethical responsibilities as an
Officer of the Court – Siler knew, at the time he made this misrepresentation, that it was false
because Siler reviewed the bankruptcy court file prior to the 2012 proceeding.
59. In sum, Defendants Aurora, Nationstar and the Law Firm Defendants, including
Siler, falsely represented that they owned Relator’s loan and presented no fewer than three
irreconcilably different versions of the Promissory Note in furtherance of their attempts to
foreclose on Relator’s property, falsely certifying in each instance that the then-presented
Promissory Note was a “true and correct” copy. In doing so, not only have Defendants
defrauded Relator, but they have defrauded the Douglas County Public Trustee’s office, the
Douglas County District Court, and the United States Bankruptcy Court in connection with
their foreclosure attempts on Relator’s property. And since 2009, each of Aurora and
Nationstar have fraudulently certified to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the United States
Treasury that they were in compliance with all applicable mortgage servicing laws, rules,
regulations and guidelines in order to claim HAMP and other available incentive payments
from the United States.
60. All the while, Defendants were well aware of their own massive forgery scheme
and acted with premeditated malicious intent to put their own pecuniary interests ahead of the
federal and state governments’ interests, the individual borrowers’ and homeowners’ interests,
20
and the interests of the nation to keep borrowers in their homes while the United States
continued to dig itself out of the financial black hole created by the mortgage industry.
VI. RELATOR’S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
61. After Defendants, in the 2012 proceeding, denied having knowledge or records
relating to the forged, handwritten notes used in the foreclosure proceedings on Relator’s
property, Relator embarked on an investigation to uncover evidence to prove otherwise. That
investigation revealed that additional forged promissory notes with the handwritten
endorsement to “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” and fraudulently-presented “blank” endorsed
notes were used by Defendants in foreclosure proceedings affecting hundreds of other
borrowers within the State of Colorado. He then found that Defendants often forged the same
homeowner’s promissory note multiple times if they needed the ownership to appear different
in later foreclosure filings or in contested foreclosure proceedings.
A. Relator located Lorraine Dodson, the Original Endorser, Who Confirmed That
Neither She Nor the Previous Servicer of Relator’s Loan Affixed the Handwritten
Endorsement to Aurora Loan Services.
62. Relator researched and located Lorraine Dodson, the person who affixed the
original endorsement from MortgageIt on Relator’s Promissory Note. There were three
different individuals whose names appeared on the different versions of the Promissory Note
– Lorraine S. Dodson, Judy Faber and Jodi Delfs. Lorraine Dodson was employed by the
original lender, MortgageIT and the handwritten endorsement appeared to be affixed by her
because her signature appeared on the endorsement. At Relator’s request, Ms. Dodson has
since provided to Relator a sworn affidavit that she did not write the handwritten endorsement.
She testifies that she endorsed the Promissory Note in “blank” in 2006, not to “Aurora Loan
Services, LLC” or “Residential Funding Corporation”.
21
63. Ms. Dodson’s affidavit also explains that she was a MortgageIT Post-Closing
Coordinator for several years and personally shipped the loan documents to one of only five
collateral banks – none of which was Aurora or Residential Funding Corporation.
64. Relator contacted the servicer of his loan prior to Aurora and requested a copy of
his original Promissory Note as it existed prior to the transfer to Aurora. The copy he received
did not have the handwritten endorsement.
65. This was critical to Relator’s investigation, as none of the Defendants claimed to
know why the forged note was used and later testified that they did not know who affixed the
handwritten endorsement to Aurora. If neither MortgageIT nor the prior servicer affixed the
handwritten endorsement to Aurora, this meant it had to have been affixed by Defendants.
B. Defendants’ Numerous Other Uses of the Same Handwritten Endorsed Forged

Notes of Which Defendants Denied Having Knowledge.
66. After Relator’s investigation revealed that the forged handwritten endorsed
Promissory Note was used by Defendants in 2010, and that it was not affixed by Ms. Dodson
or the previous servicer, Relator reviewed thousands of pages of documents and promissory
notes from the same state and federal court dockets. He uncovered a widespread pattern and
practice of Defendants’ frauds in connection with their foreclosures on borrowers’ properties
throughout the State of Colorado. Relator began finding that the same forged handwritten
endorsement (of which Defendants denied having any knowledge) was used by Aurora in
thousands of other filings.
67. Relator’s further research of all of Aurora’s foreclosure filings in Douglas and
Denver Counties for periods up to and including 2012 revealed that the exact same handwriting
that appears in the fraudulent endorsements of the Note relating to his property appears in
22
hundreds of other notes in Aurora foreclosures. This meant that there were likely thousands
of others used by Defendant in the over 50 other counties in Colorado.
68. Relator then reviewed the thousands of pages of promissory notes, recording facts
specific to each filing that contained a handwritten “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” endorsement.
He found the forgeries were only evident on those promissory notes submitted in connection
with foreclosures handled by the Law Firm Defendants.
69. Specifically, only notes “certified” and “verified” by Defendants Toni Marie Owan
(f/k/a Toni M.N. Dale) and Holly Ryan (f/k/a Holly L. Decker) were affixed with the
handwritten endorsement to “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” like the endorsement found on the
fraudulent promissory notes used in the foreclosure proceedings on Relator’s property.
70. Upon studying those filings at length, Relator found that there were two different
handwriting styles used to endorse notes and they were the same as the former Law Firm
Defendants’ employees, Penny Dietrich-Smith and Jennifer L. Reynolds (f/k/a Jennifer L.
Hanke). Hundreds of copies of “promissory notes” submitted by the Law Firm Defendants in
their foreclosure proceedings were affixed with endorsements using the two different
handwriting styles but, in each case, the endorsement to “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” was
written slightly differently. This evidenced that these same Law Firm Defendants forged the
notes by physically endorsing copies of homeowners’ promissory notes with a “wet”
endorsement over and over again to repeatedly create fraudulent promissory notes.
23
71. Defendants’ widespread and systemic practices – involving hundreds of forged
promissory notes – became obvious as Relator’s investigation continued, and the forged
endorsements became readily recognizable in the court filings, with Defendant Hanke’s
endorsements always prepared in printed handwriting, and Defendant Dietrich-Smith’s
endorsements always prepared in cursive handwriting.
72. Importantly, while these forgeries were committed in documents ultimately filed
with various courts and public trustees’ offices – and therefore publicly accessible –
Defendants’ use of the same promissory notes, with different (forged) endorsements, in
multiple foreclosure proceedings were never disclosed (certainly not by Defendants!) until
Relator completed his investigation and uncovered the inconsistent and irreconciliable multiple
versions used by Defendants.
73. Once Defendants were made aware of the first forgeries found by Relator, they
continued to conceal the forgery scheme. In early 2013, officers of both Aurora and Nationstar,
and Defendant Siler were provided over 60 specific examples of the forgeries and an
explanation of the details of what Relator uncovered through his independent research.
Defendants Toni M.N. Dale and Holly L. Decker then closed their law firm, Dale & Decker
LLC, and denied having any knowledge of the scheme. Further, they have both changed their
24
names and are now listed on the Colorado Bar Association’s website as Toni Marie Owan and
Holly Ryan.
74. Defendants’ refusal to acknowledge their forgeries and continued acts to conceal
the scheme led Relator to review thousands more promissory notes and filings through 2015 –
all of which reveal the continuing frauds by all Defendants to this day.
75. Specifically, Relator found that the same two Law Firm Defendants’ employees,
Defendants Dietrich-Smith and Hanke not only affixed the forged handwritten endorsements,
but also notarized the Note & Deed Trust Certifications and Verified Motions for Orders
Authorizing Sale that Defendants Dale and Decker submitted to the applicable state and federal
courts – notarizing these documents with full knowledge of the frauds and forgeries those
Certifications and Verified Motions contained.
C. Defendants’ Use of Forged and Fraudulent “Blank” Notes and Allonges
76. Relator’s investigation into the files of various public trustees, county courts, and
federal bankruptcy courts – specifically those files where multiple copies of the “original” or
“true and correct” copy of the original note were purportedly produced by the foreclosing
entities and their attorneys, as in Relator’s case – revealed that Defendants not only forge notes
by handwriting in “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” but that they also employed numerous
methods to intentionally forge and fraudulently present promissory notes by adding or
removing endorsements and/or allonges, just as they had done in Relator’s case.
77. Defendants have perpetrated the same frauds in numerous foreclosure filings
against multiple other borrowers. As a few examples, Relator’s investigation uncovered the
additional frauds demonstrated in the graphics below:
25
a) In separate foreclosure filings in 2010 and 2012 relating to the loan of a Colorado
borrower by the name of Barnett, Defendants’ forged handwritten endorsement,
evident on the promissory note presented in Defendants’ 2010 foreclosure filing by
Defendant Decker on April 22, 2010, on behalf of Aurora, disappears in a subsequent
2012 foreclosure filing by a different firm on behalf of Aurora, in which the same
promissory note is presented in “blank”:
b) In separate foreclosure filings in 2010 and 2013 relating to the loan of another Colorado
borrower by the name of Garcia, Defendants presented to the court in their first
foreclosure filing – submitted on December 16, 2010 by Defendant Decker – a
promissory note endorsed to Aurora Loan Services, LLC, which promissory note was
replaced in Defendants’ 2013 filing – submitted in March 2013 by a different law firm
– with a stamped endorsement to Residential Funding Company and an allonge
endorsing the note to Aurora.
26
D. Defendants’ Flagrant Frauds and Forgeries Continue to This Day.
78. Relator’s investigation further revealed that Defendants have fraudulently
presented and forged promissory notes, utilizing numerous different methods, dating back to
2007.
79. Relator continued researching individual homeowners’ foreclosure files and found
that Defendants’ motive for forging promissory notes could be determined by comparing the
endorsements they added or removed to the corresponding foreclosure filing.
80. As one example, below is the same promissory note that is forged four different
times, in four different ways in separate foreclosure filings in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013
relating to loan of a Colorado borrower by the name of Yokomizo. In the 2008 filing, the
endorsement is printed in one handwriting. In the next filing, by Defendant Ryan (f/k/a Decker)
on May 7, 2010, the endorsement to “Aurora Loan Services, LLC” is written differently,
proving that there were multiple forged versions. Defendant Ryan attempted another
foreclosure in January 2012, now with a promissory note endorsed in blank, before Aurora –
through Defendant Dale filed yet again on October 31, 2013 – this time on behalf of Nationstar
– with another forged endorsement to Aurora.
27
81. By misrepresenting to Colorado courts that the promissory notes were “true and
correct” copies, Defendants concealed their misconduct from both the courts, borrowers, and
the public.
82. Defendants’ false and fraudulent filings are material to the foreclosure process
because, without them, a successful judicial foreclosures could not have been accomplished.
83. Defendants’ misconduct has harmed the United States, the State of Colorado, their
respective court systems, the United States Trustee, Colorado public trustees (including the
Douglas County Public Trustee), borrowers who were left homeless, and the public.
E. The Barcode Labelling System Used by Countrywide/Bank of America Further

Evidences Defendants’ Frauds and Forgeries.
84. Defendant Nationstar services mortgage loans originated by Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) and Bank of America, N.A. (collectively “Countrywide/Bank of
America”), which acquired Countrywide in 2008.
85. At all relevant times, Countrywide/Bank of America has utilized barcode labels to
track original mortgage loan documents, such as promissory notes and allonges. This practice
is well known by people who handle mortgage loan servicing and foreclosures.
86. Each Countrywide/Bank of America barcode label is placed on the first page of the
mortgage loan document and contains both the loan number and a code that indicates the type
28
of document it is. A Note, for instance, includes “N” in the code, while an allonge includes
“ALL” in the code. Barcode labels are visible even on poor copies of original documents.
87. The absence of a barcode label on a Countrywide/Bank of America-originated
mortgage loan document indicates that a document is not an original.
88. Defendants know about the Countrywide/Bank of America barcode labeling system
and that the absence of a label on a document indicates that the document is not an original.
89. As part of the foreclosure process, Colorado requires attorneys to file a Statement
by Attorney for Qualified Holder verifying, inter alia, that the following are true: (1) The
Qualified Holder identified on the Statement “is the holder of the original evidence of debt”;
(2) “A true and correct copy of the original evidence of debt is attached hereto”; (3) the
“Qualified Holder is the current beneficiary of the Deed of Trust”; and (4) “A true and correct
copy of the recorded Deed of Trust is attached hereto.” The Statement is then signed by the
attorney and notarized by a Notary Public.
90. Despite knowing that certain Countrywide/Bank of America documents were not
original or true and correct copies of original evidences of debt, Defendants filed them with
the relevant court along with false Statements.
91. As an example, on September 20, 2013, Jennifer H. Trachte, Aronowitz and
Mecklenberg, LLP, attorneys for Nationstar Mortgage LLC, filed a Notice of Election and
Demand for Sale with the Public Trustee of Denver County, Colorado, for property located at
1965 Yosemite Street, Denver, Colorado 80220. Included in the filing was an alleged copy of
an original mortgage note dated December 7, 2007, and signed by Margie A. Carrell (“Carrell
note”) and an allonge assigning the note from American Financing Corporation to
Countrywide Bank, FSB and then from Countrywide Bank, FSB to “blank.”
29
92. More than three years earlier, on March 26, 2010, Keith A. Gantenbein, as attorney
for BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., filed a Notice of Election and Demand to Foreclose
with the Public Trustee of Denver County, Denver, Colorado, against Margie A. Carrell for
the same property located at 1965 Yosemite Street, Denver, Colorado 80220. Included in the
filing was an alleged copy of the original Carrell mortgage note, but no assignments nor
allonges evidencing assignment from the lender American Financing Corporation to BAC
Home Loans Servicing, L.P. Moreover, neither the 2010 version of the note nor the 2013
version of the note or allonge contained a barcode label like the one utilized by Countrywide.
VII. DEFENDANTS’ FALSE CLAIMS
A. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Programs

Established Thereunder
93. Beginning in the fall of 2008, the Government instituted several measures to
stabilize the housing and credit markets and assist troubled homeowners.
94. In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”)
was enacted to promote stability and liquidity in the financial system. Among other things,
EESA authorized the U.S. Department of the Treasury to establish Troubled Asset Relief
Program (“TARP”). TARP funds were used, in part, to promote various mortgage loan
modification programs.
95. HAMP: In March 2009, the Government launched the Making Home Affordable
(“MHA”) Program. The MHA Program included the Home Affordable Modification Program
(“HAMP”) pursuant to sections 101 and 109 of the EESA. Section 109 of EESA was further
amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. HAMP uses TARP funds
to provide incentives for mortgage servicers to modify eligible first-lien mortgages.
30
96. HAMP uses incentive payments to mortgage servicers, such as and including
Aurora and Nationstar, to encourage the mortgage servicers and owners of mortgage loans or
bonds backed by mortgage loans to modify eligible first-lien mortgages so that monthly
payments of homeowners who are in default or at imminent risk of default will be reduced to
affordable and sustainable levels.
97. Since establishing HAMP, the Treasury has established various new programs
(together with HAMP, the “HAMP Programs”) under EESA to:
further stabilize the housing market by facilitating second lien mortgage loan
modifications and extinguishments, providing home price decline protection
incentives, encouraging foreclosure alternatives, such as short sales and deeds in
lieu of foreclosure, and making other foreclosure prevention services available to
the marketplace.3
98. HPDP: The Home Price Decline Protection (“HPDP”) Incentives initiative was
designed to encourage loan modifications in markets hardest hit by falling home prices. The
HPDP initiative provides investors with additional incentives for loan modification on
properties located in areas where home prices have declined and where investors are concerned
that price declines may persist.
99. PRA: The Principal Reduction Alternative (“PRA”) is designed to encourage the
use of principal reduction in modifications for eligible borrowers whose homes are worth
significantly less than the remaining outstanding principal balances of their first-lien mortgage
loans. It provides investor incentives to offset a portion of the principal reduction.
3
Amended and Restated Commitment to Purchase Financial Instrument and Servicer
Participation Agreement, executed by Nationstar September 29, 2010.
31
100. UP: The Home Affordable Unemployment Program (“UP”) was designed to offer
assistance to unemployed homeowners through temporary forbearance of a portion of their
mortgage payments.
101. HAFA: The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (“HAFA”) program was
designed to provide incentives to servicers, investors, and borrowers to utilize short sales and
deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for HAMP-eligible loans in cases in which borrowers can no
longer afford to stay in their homes, but want to avoid foreclosure. Under this program, the
servicer releases the lien against the property and the investor waives all rights to seek a
deficiency judgment against a borrower who uses a short sale or deed-in-lieu when the property
is worth less than the outstanding principal balance of the mortgage.
102. 2MP: The Second Lien Modification Program (“2MP”) was designed to modify
second-lien mortgages when a corresponding first lien is modified under HAMP.
103. FHA-HAMP: The Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”)–HAMP Program was
designed to compensate holders and servicers of FHA-insured mortgages modified to reduce
payments to more affordable levels.
104. FHA2LP: The Treasury/FHA Second Lien Program (“FHA2LP”) was designed to
facilitate refinancing under the FHA Short Refinance Program by reducing second-lien
mortgages. The Treasury Department provides incentives to participating servicers and
investors who agree to partial or full extinguishment of second liens associations with an FHA
refinance.
105. Aurora and Nationstar accepted incentive payments and otherwise benefitted from
the federal TARP, HAMP, HDPD, PRA, UP, HAFA, 2MP, FHA-HAMP, and FHA2LP
programs
32
B. Aurora and Nationstar Claim HAMP and Other Incentives/Funding
1. The HAMP Program
106. In the third quarter of 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department rolled out the HAMP
Program to encourage lenders to modify home-secured loans. Under HAMP, loan servicers,
investors/owners of the loans, and borrowers receive incentive payments from the Government
to encourage modifications and keep modified payments current (borrowers’ incentives are
paid to the servicer to be applied as principal reduction paid to the owner/investor).
107. On April 3, 2009 and May 28, 2009, respectively, Aurora and Nationstar each
entered into a Commitment to Purchase Financial Instrument and Servicer Participation
Agreement (“SPA”) with Fannie Mae, as financial agent for the United States. Under the SPAs,
Aurora and Nationstar would participate in the HAMP Program “on the terms and subject to
the conditions” set forth in the SPAs.
108. Under the SPAs, Aurora and Nationstar agreed to “perform the loan modification
and other foreclosure prevention services” pursuant to the HAMP Program Guidelines, and
certified their “continuing compliance with, and the truth and accuracy of, the representations
and warranties set forth in the [SPA]” would be provided annually in the form of the “Annual
Certification.”
109. Under the SPAs, “Fannie Mae, in its capacity as a financial agent of the United
States,” agreed to “(i) remit compensation payments to Servicer; (ii) remit incentive payments
to Servicer for the account of Servicer and for the credit of borrowers under their respective
mortgage loan obligations; and (iii) remit payments to Servicer for the account of Investors.”
110. The value of Aurora’s initial Program Participation Cap was $798,000,000, which
amount may be adjusted, and was payable to Aurora over time, upon Aurora’s performance of
33
the described services to the reasonable satisfaction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The
value of Nationstar’s initial Program Participation Cap was $316,000,000, which amount may
be adjusted, and was (is) payable to Nationstar over time, upon Nationstar’s performance of
the described services to the reasonable satisfaction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
111. As part of its election to participate in the HAMP Program and as required under
the SPAs and accompanying documentation, and as a condition precedent to their receipt of
the Program Participation funds, Aurora and Nationstar represented and warranted, inter alia,
that each of them:
a) is in compliance with, and covenants that all Services will be performed in compliance
with, all applicable Federal, state and local laws, regulations, regulatory guidance,
statutes, ordinances, codes and requirements … designed to prevent unfair,
discriminatory or predatory lending practices….
b) (i) will perform its obligations in accordance with the Agreement and will promptly
provide such performance reporting as Fannie Mae may reasonably require; (ii) all
mortgage modifications and all trial period modifications will be offered to borrowers,
fully documented and serviced in accordance with the Program Documentation; and
(iii) all data, collection information and other information reported by Servicer to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the Agreement, including, but not limited to,
information that is relied upon by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in calculating the
Purchase Price or in performing any compliance review will be true, complete and
accurate in all material respects, and consistent with all relevant servicing records, as
and when provided.
34
c) will: (i) perform the Services required under the Program Documentation and the
Agreement in accordance with the practices, high professional standards of care, and
degree of attention used in a well-managed operation, and no less than that which the
Servicer exercises for itself under similar circumstances; and (ii) use qualified
individuals with suitable training, education, experience and skills to perform the
Services….
112. Aurora and Nationstar further acknowledged in the SPAs that “the provision of
false or misleading information to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in connection with the [HAMP]
Program may constitute a violation of … the civil False Claims Act”, and covenanted to
disclose “any credible evidence, in connection with the Services, that a management official,
employee, or contractor of Servicer has committed, or may have committed, a violation of the
referenced statutes.”
113. Aurora and Nationstar also covenanted to disclose “any other facts or information
that the Treasury, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac should reasonably expect to know about Servicer
and its contractors to help protect the reputational interests of the Treasury, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac in managing and monitoring the Program.”
114. In order for its continued participation in the HAMP Program and its continued
receipt of funds thereunder, Aurora executed annual Certifications, in which it made these
same representations, warranties and covenants. Upon information and belief, Aurora
submitted an annual Certification in each of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, until it terminated its
participation in the HAMP Program on July 1, 2013.
115. In order for its continued participation in the HAMP Program and its continued
receipt of funds thereunder, Nationstar executed annual Certifications, in which it made these
35
same representations, warranties and covenants. Upon information and belief, Nationstar
submitted an annual Certification in each of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
116. Nationstar and Aurora were required, among other things, to comply with the
guidelines set forth in the Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of Non-
GSE Mortgages (“MHA Handbook”), which governs the procedures for HAMP loan
modifications. The MHA Handbook is “incorporated by reference” into the SPAs executed by
Aurora and Nationstar, and further requires that each participating “servicer and any sub-
servicer that the servicer uses will be subject to and must fully comply with all federal, state,
and local laws….”
2. Defendants Committed Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Violations
117. The FHA was created by Congress in 1934 and became part of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965. The FHA provides mortgage insurance for
single-family housing loans to approved lenders to protect them against losses resulting from
defaulting borrowers.4 FHA-approved servicers are obligated to comply with all applicable
laws and regulations.5 Those servicers that fail to comply with HUD statutes, regulations,
handbook requirements or mortgagee letters may be required to repay incentives received
or indemnify HUD for any losses incurred.6
118. After April 25, 1996, FHA ceased accepting applications for the assignment of
FHA loans that had gone into default and instead initiated a comprehensive loss mitigation
4
See 12 U.S.C. § 1709; see generally 24 C.F.R § 203.
5
Letter from David H. Stevens, Federal Housing Commissioner (Oct. 8, 2010), available
at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OCT201008.pdf
6
Id.
36
program to provide relief to borrowers in default.7 The loss mitigation program returned the
responsibility for managing loan defaults to the servicer and provided financial incentives for
this effort. Pursuant to HUD regulations and guidance, FHA-approved lenders and their
servicers are required to engage in loss mitigation to avoid the foreclosure of HUD-insured
residential mortgages.8 Aurora and Nationstar have continuously failed to meet the basic and
fundamental requirements related to the servicing of delinquent FHA loans under the mandated
loss mitigation program.
3. Violations of FHA Quality Control Requirements – Failure to implement an FHA-

compliant quality control program
119. To service FHA loans, a servicer must have a fully functioning Quality Control
(QC) Program in place to ensure that FHA-compliance procedures are observed and that
personnel working for the lender understand how to meet the strict FHA requirements.9 FHA-
compliant QC programs and plans provide for the correction and reporting of problems and
violations to HUD once the lender becomes aware of them.
120. Aurora and Nationstar knowingly failed to meet even the basic elements of a QC
program. The servicer’s knowing failure to implement an FHA-compliant QC program was a
direct violation of HUD requirements and rendered each of Aurora’s and Nationstar’s requests
7
See generally 24 C.F.R. § 203.605; Mortgagee Letter 2000-05, “Loss Mitigation Program
– Comprehensive Clarification of Policy and Notice of Procedural Changes”, Jan. 19, 2000.
8
24 C.F.R. § 203.500 et seq.; ML 2000-05, at p. 6; see also ML 2008-27, “Treble Damages
for Failure to Engage in Loss Mitigation” (Sept. 26, 2008) (to avoid treble damages, “First,
mortgagees must ensure that the loss mitigation evaluations are completed for all delinquent
mortgages before four full monthly installments are due and unpaid. Second, mortgagees must
ensure that the appropriate action is taken based on these evaluations. Third, mortgagees must
maintain documentation for all initial and subsequent loss mitigation evaluations and actions
taken”).
9
See HUD Handbook No. 4060.1 Ch. 7: Quality Control Plan.
37
for payment from the FHA insurance fund a false claim. Thus, the initial and annual SPA
certifications/representations executed by Aurora and Nationstar – that they were “in
compliance with all applicable Federal, state and local laws, regulations … requirements …
and other Federal and state laws designed to prevent unfair, discriminatory or predatory
lending practices…” were knowingly false for these additional reasons. These false
certifications and representations were express conditions of payment and material to the
Government’s decision to make HAMP incentive payments.
121. Aurora and Nationstar knew they were directly responsible for the serious
violations that they and the Law Firm Defendants and other third party contractors committed,
by virtue of the Financial Instrument contained in the Original and Amended SPAs.
Specifically, the Financial Instrument provides as follows:
Use of Contractors. Servicer is responsible for the supervision and management of

any contractor that assists in the performance of Services in connection with the
Programs in which Servicer participates. Servicer shall remove and replace any
contractor that fails to perform. Servicer shall ensure that all of its contractors
comply with the terms and provisions of the Agreement. Servicer shall be
responsible for the acts or omissions of its contractors as if the acts or omissions
were by the Servicer.
122. Thus, the initial and annual SPA certifications and representations made by Aurora
and Nationstar – that they were “in compliance with “all applicable Federal, state and local
laws, regulations … requirements … and other Federal and state laws designed to prevent
unfair discriminatory or predatory lending practices …” were knowingly false for these
additional reasons. These false certifications and representations were express conditions of
payment and material to the government’s decision to make HAMP incentive payments.
38
4. Aurora’s and Nationstar’s False Certifications
123. The FHA has paid insurance claims for insured mortgages based on Aurora’s and
Nationstar’s false certifications that they were in compliance with all FHA and HUD
regulations. These certifications were material to the Government’s decision to pay FHA
mortgage insurance proceeds, and FHA would not have paid if it had known about Defendants’
knowing failures to comply with FHA requirements.
124. Specifically, in order to qualify as an FHA-insured lender, Aurora and Nationstar
were required to submit an annual certification to HUD.10 Aurora and Nationstar certified in
their annual certification to HUD as follows (in sum and substance):
I know or am in the position to know, whether the operations of the above-named

mortgagee conform to HUD-FHA regulations, handbooks, and policies. I certify
that to the best of my knowledge, the above named mortgagee conforms to all
HUD-FHA regulations necessary to maintain its HUD-FHA approval, and that the
above-named mortgagee is fully responsible for all actions of its employees
including those of its HUD-FHA approved branch offices.
125. More specifically, the relevant annual certification has been made by Aurora and
Nationstar annually from and after the date they were first approved to participate in HUD’s
Title I and Title II Programs, and able to submit FHA mortgages for FHA insurance
endorsement.
126. Aurora and Nationstar are participants in FHA programs, and therefore must submit
the annual certification in question to maintain their approvals. In each annual certification,
Aurora and Nationstar certified they had “complied with an agreed to continue to comply with
10
See 24 C.F.R. § 202.5; see also ML 2009-42 (“Sub-Servicing of FHA-insured
Mortgages”) (Oct. 19, 2009) (“As a reminder, the servicing of FHA-insured loans must be
performed by a mortgagee that is approved by FHA pursuant to FHA guidelines. See 24 CFR §§
202.5 and 203.502.”).
39
HUD-FHA regulations, handbooks, Mortgagee Letters, policies, and terms of any agreements
entered into with the Department.11 Absent such a certification, a lender cannot submit a
mortgage for FHA insurance endorsement. The FHA has paid Aurora and Nationstar insurance
claims related to mortgages insured by the FHA based on the false certification they had
complied with all HUD-FHA regulations, including any servicing requirements. FHA would
not have paid Aurora and Nationstar for such mortgage insurance claims if it had known of
Defendants’ non-compliance with HUD-FHA rules and regulations.
127. Defendants’ cumulative FHA loss mitigation violations were material to the United
States’ payment decisions. Thus, the initial and annual SPA certifications and representations
executed by Aurora and Nationstar – that they were “in compliance with all applicable Federal,
state and local laws, regulations … requirements … and other Federal and state laws designed
to prevent unfair discriminatory or predatory lending practices…” – were knowingly false for
all of these additional reasons. Aurora, Nationstar and the Law Firm Defendants knowingly
presented, or caused to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval in
violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). Furthermore, Defendants knowingly made, used or
caused to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim
that was material to the United States’ decision to pay insurance claims for insured mortgages
in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). These false statements and certifications
fraudulently induced the United States to make insurance claim payments from the FHA
insurance fund, based upon the belief that Servicer Defendants’ certifications and
representations of compliance with all FHA and HUD regulations were true when they were,
in fact, not true. Therefore, Defendants are liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not
11
See HUD Mortgagee Letter 2009-25 and sample Annual Certification attached thereto.
40
less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each such claim, plus three (3) times the amount
of damages sustained by the Government because of the false claims under 31 U.S.C. §
3729(a)(1)(G).
5. Failure by Aurora and Nationstar to Self-Report
128. As a participant in the government’s HAMP Program, Aurora and Nationstar had
the express, affirmative duty to notify Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac immediately in the event
that any of the representations, warranties, or covenants made by them in the SPA ceased to
be “true and correct.”12 Despite this directive, Aurora and Nationstar have knowingly failed
to notify the government of all violations committed by all Defendants of which they were
aware. Aurora and Nationstar have knowingly violated this obligation to the United States,
many thousands of time, when Aurora and Nationstar knew of violations that had occurred.
129. Specifically, Aurora and Nationstar did not (1) operate in compliance with all
applicable Federal, state and local laws, regulations, regulatory guidance, statutes, ordinances,
codes and requirements; (2) perform their services in accordance with high professional
standards of care, using qualified individuals with suitable training, education, experience and
skills; or (3) responsibly supervise and manage third-party contractors, including the Law Firm
Defendants, to ensure that services were being performed in accordance with HAMP Program
requirements. These knowing failures by Aurora and Nationstar to properly report violations
to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as required by the SPAs, render the certifications and
representations of Aurora and Nationstar knowingly false.
12
See Aurora and Nationstar Original and Amended and Restated SPAs, at Financial
Instrument ¶ 5 (“In the event that any of the representations, warranties, or covenants made herein
ceases to be true and correct, Servicer agrees to notify Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
immediately.”).
41
C. Defendants’ Conduct is Worse than Robo-Signing
130. Litigation spawned by the national foreclosure crisis has revealed use by mortgage
servicers (including Defendants Aurora and Nationstar) of what has infamously become known
as “robo-signing.” Robo-signing is the practice of signing mortgage assignments,
satisfactions, and other mortgage-related documentation in assembly-line fashion, often with
a name other than the affiant’s own, and swearing to personal knowledge of facts of which the
affiant has no knowledge.
131. Aurora and Nationstar more likely than not engaged in robo-signing. Indeed,
Aurora entered into a Consent Order with the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”), in which
the OTS identified “unsafe or unsound practices” in Aurora’s mortgage servicing and initiation
and handling of foreclosure proceedings.13
132. Aurora and Nationstar likely found much relief in agreeing to the liability imposed
by these consent orders because they successfully concealed their outright fraud from the
governmental authorities. That is, none of the consent orders entered into by Aurora or
Nationstar address the blatant fraud and forgeries that Relator’s dealings with Defendants and
his independent investigation have revealed.
13
The Government found, inter alia, that Aurora: “filed or caused to be filed in state and
federal courts … numerous affidavits or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly
notarized….” and “litigated foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings and initiated non-judicial
foreclosure proceedings without always ensuring that each promissory note and mortgage
document were properly endorsed or assigned…” Nationstar avoided a Consent Order with the
OTS, but entered into one or more similar consent orders with various state attorneys general. See,
e.g., In the Matter of Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Commissioner of Banks Docket 2011-010,
November 30, 2011, available at http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/banking-and-finance/laws-and-
regulations/enforcement-actions/2011-dob-enforcement-actions/nationstar-consentorder-
11302011.html (last visited December 12, 2016).
42
133. Instead, both Aurora and Nationstar have certified, attested, represented and
warranted to the United States Treasury, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other governmental
authorities that they have been, are presently, and will continue to service residential mortgage
loans in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, requirements and guidelines –
even as they continue to conceal their past forgeries and continue to forge promissory notes
and defraud borrowers, courts and governmental authorities in conducting foreclosures with
fraudulent promissory notes. And the Law Firm Defendants have schemed with Aurora and
Nationstar to conceal these frauds, and continue to commit additional frauds to this day.
COUNT I – FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(D)
134. Relator realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
135. This is a claim for treble damages and forfeitures under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., as amended.
136. By affixing and submitting false signatures on mortgage promissory notes,
endorsements and other mortgage-related documents submitted in furtherance of foreclosure,
Defendants violated numerous federal and state laws. According to a mortgage fraud notice
prepared jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mortgage Bankers Association,
Defendants’ submission of forged and otherwise fraudulent promissory notes in furtherance of
foreclosure violates at least eight federal criminal statutes, including: (1) 18 U.S.C. §1001 –
statements or entries generally; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1010 – HUD and Federal Housing
Administration transactions; (3) 18 U.S.C. § 1014 – Loan and credit applications generally; (4)
18 U.S.C. § 1028 – Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents; (5)
18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Frauds and swindles by mail; (6) 18 U.S.C. § 1342 – Fictitious name or
43
address; (7) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Fraud by wire; and (8) 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank fraud.14
Defendants’ activities also violate Colorado law. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-102(1)(c) makes it a
felony to commit forgery, defined as follows: “A person commits forgery if, with intent to
defraud, such person falsely makes, completes, or utters a … promissory note, check or other
instrument.”
137. Aurora and Nationstar claimed and accepted incentive payments from the United
States Treasury under the TARP- and HAMP-related programs. As a condition precedent to
their receipt of those funds (and continuing receipt of those funds in the case of Nationstar),
Aurora and Nationstar certified, represented and warranted to the United States Treasury,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they had been, presently were, and will be in the future
servicing home mortgage loans in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations,
requirements and guidelines. Each and every certification submitted to the United States in
exchange for incentive payments from the United States was knowingly false when made,
because – as Relator’s evidence demonstrates – Aurora, Nationstar and the Law Firm
Defendants forged signatures and endorsements on thousands of borrowers’ promissory notes,
and defrauded borrowers, state and federal courts, public trustees and other governmental
authorities when they further certified those forged and otherwise fraudulent promissory notes
as “true and correct” copies when they submitted them in furtherance of foreclosures. These
forged and fraudulent promissory notes were created and used in furtherance of foreclosure
proceedings prior to, during and after each certification submitted to the United States in
exchange for incentive payments.
14
See FBI Mortgage Fraud Notice (available at https://goo.gl/qaNWIX); see also Truth in
Lending Act, title 1 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.
44
138. As a result of Defendants’ illegal foreclosure practices and submission of false
claims for incentive payments under the TARP- and HAMP-related programs, the United
States has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, in amount yet to be determined.
COUNT II – FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(C)
139. Relator realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
140. This is a claim for treble damages and forfeitures under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., as amended.
141. By affixing and submitting false signatures on mortgage promissory notes,
endorsements and other mortgage-related documents submitted in furtherance of foreclosure,
Defendants violated numerous federal and state laws. According to a mortgage fraud notice
prepared jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mortgage Bankers Association,
Defendants’ submission of forged and otherwise fraudulent promissory notes in furtherance of
foreclosure violates at least eight federal criminal statutes, including: (1) 18 U.S.C. §1001 –
statements or entries generally; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1010 – HUD and Federal Housing
Administration transactions; (3) 18 U.S.C. § 1014 – Loan and credit applications generally; (4)
18 U.S.C. § 1028 – Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents; (5)
18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Frauds and swindles by mail; (6) 18 U.S.C. § 1342 – Fictitious name or
address; (7) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Fraud by wire; and (8) 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank fraud.15
Defendants’ activities also violate Colorado law. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-102(1)(c) makes it a
felony to commit forger, defined as follows: “A person commits forgery if, with intent to
15
See FBI Mortgage Fraud Notice (available at https://goo.gl/qaNWIX); see also Truth in
Lending Act, title 1 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.
45
defraud, such person falsely makes, completes, or utters a … promissory note, check or other
instrument.”
142. Aurora and Nationstar claimed and accepted incentive payments from the United
States Treasury under the TARP- and HAMP-related programs. As a condition precedent to
their receipt of those funds (and continuing receipt of those funds in the case of Nationstar),
Aurora and Nationstar certified, represented and warranted to the United States Treasury,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they had been, presently were, and will be in the future
servicing home mortgage loans in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations,
requirements and guidelines. Each and every certification submitted to the United States in
exchange for incentive payments from the United States was knowingly false when made,
because – as Relator’s evidence demonstrates – Aurora, Nationstar and the Law Firm
Defendants forged signatures and endorsements on thousands of borrowers’ promissory notes,
and defrauded borrowers, state and federal courts, public trustees and other governmental
authorities when they further certified those forged and otherwise fraudulent promissory notes
as “true and correct” copies when they submitted them in furtherance of foreclosures. These
forged and fraudulent promissory notes were created and used in furtherance of foreclosure
proceedings prior to, during and after each certification submitted to the United States in
exchange for incentive payments.
143. The Defendants conspired with one another to complete the illegal foreclosures, by
certifying as “true and correct” promissory notes that Defendants knew were fraudulent,
forging the requisite endorsements, and submitting them to public trustees and federal and state
courts on behalf of Defendants Aurora and Nationstar. Upon information and belief, the Law
46
Firm Defendants received hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
144. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to violate the False Claims Act, the United
States has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, in amount yet to be determined.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Relator requests that judgment be entered against Defendants, ordering

that:
a) Defendants pay an amount equal to three times the amount of damages the United
States has sustained because of Defendants’ actions, plus a civil penalty against
Defendants of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 for each violation of 31
U.S.C. § 3730(d);
b) Relator be awarded the maximum amount of damages allowed pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730(d);
c) Relator be awarded all costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d); and
d) The United States and Relator be granted all such other relief afforded by law as the
Court deems appropriate.
47
REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Relator hereby demands a
trial by jury.
Dated: December 20, 2017
TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C.
/s/ Shannon W. Conway

Shannon W. Conway (Atty Reg. 43958)
Talcott J. Franklin
TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C.
1920 McKinney Ave., 7th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 736-8370 (telephone)
(877) 577-1356 (facsimile)
sconway@talcottfranklin.com
48

United States District Court For Distric PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court For Distric PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-10843-scc Doc 159-2 Filed 09/25/19 Entered 09/25/19 15:47:23 Exhibit 1 to

Declaration of James Heron Pg 1 of 53

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL, )

COMPLAINT FOR FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

II. Parties ..............................................................................................4

III. Jurisdiction and Venue ..............................................................................................7

IV. Conditions Precedent ..............................................................................................7

V. Defendants’ Initial Frauds, Forgeries and Perjuries ............................................................8

A. Defendants’ 2008 and 2009 Attempted Foreclosures ............................................11

B. The December 2010 Bankruptcy Court Proceeding ..............................................12

C. The March 2011 Foreclosure Proceeding ..............................................................13

D. The 2012 Proceedings ............................................................................................14

VI. Relator’s Independent Investigation ..................................................................................21

A. Relator Located Lorraine Dodson, the Original Endorser, Who Confirmed

B. Defendants’ Numerous Other Uses of the Same Handwritten Endorsed

D. Defendants’ Flagrant Frauds and Forgeries Continue to This Day .......................27

E. The Barcode Labelling System Used by Countrywide/Bank of America

VII. Defendants’ False Claims

A. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Programs

B. Aurora and Nationstar Claim HAMP and Other Incentives/Funding ....................33

1. The HAMP Program ..................................................................................33

2. Defendants Committed Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

3. Violations of FHA Quality Control Requirements – Failure to

4. Aurora’s and Nationstar’s False Certifications ..........................................41

5. Failure by Aurora and Nationstar to Self-Report .......................................41

C. Defendants’ Conduct is Worse than Robo-Signing ...............................................42

COUNT I – Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(D) ..............................................43

COUNT II – Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) .............................................45

Prayer for Relief ............................................................................................47

Request for Trial by Jury ............................................................................................48

COMPLAINT FOR FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS

United States of America (“United States” or “Government”).

2. Aurora and Nationstar wrongfully obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in

participate and recover incentives in the Treasury Department’s Home Affordable

Modification Program (“HAMP”) and other Government programs designed to keep

payments it otherwise would not have made.

4. Relator’s independent investigation – conducted during and since his foreclosure

precisely the opposite of what they promised.

5. Specifically, rather than work to prevent foreclosures and facilitate loan

in their own name, and going to cash it at the bank.

7. Importantly, when inducing the Government to make incentive payments, Aurora

with avoiding foreclosure by offering loan modifications to make borrowers’ mortgage

enforcement efforts intended to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

States of America, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

headquarters is located at 10350 Park Meadows Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80124.

Aurora Bank FSB merged with Aurora Commercial Corp. in 2013.

and Holly Ryan.

Boulevard, Suite 250, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.

134, Lakewood, CO 80226

address is 3007 South Mobile Way, Aurora, Colorado 80013.

23. Defendant Penny Dietrich-Smith is a resident of the State of Colorado. Upon

Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80130.

3400, Denver, Colorado 80202.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

on this Court for actions brought pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729.

acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3729 in this District.

IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

Complaint and the material evidence submitted to it.

or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, lawsuit, or investigation in which

evidence and information he possesses, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).