SUPERIOR COURT OF CLARKE COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

BETH ANN VAN HOOSE;

Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
v

ATHENS FIRST BANK & TRUST, FILE NO: __________________

A DIVISION OF SYNOVUS BANK,

AND ALL ITS EMPLOYEES,
AGENTS, AND ATTORNEYS
Defendants

VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR INJUNCTION, TO SET ASIDE
FORECLOSURE SALE, AND TO CANCEL DEED UNDER POWER

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Beth Ann Van Hoose and files Verified
Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction, to Set
Aside Foreclosure Sale, and to Cancel Deed Under Power pursuant to Uniform
Superior Court Rules 6.7,1 and O.C.G.A. §9-11-65(b) against the listed
Defendants.
PARTIES TO THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff Beth Ann Van Hoose, at all times relevant has resided at 515
Vaughn Rd., Athens, Georgia 30606, in Clarke County.
1
U.S.C.R. Rule 6.7: “…judge may shorten or waive the time requirement applicable to
emergency motions, ...The motion shall set forth in detail the necessity for such expedited
procedure.”
1
2. Defendant Synovus Bank, is a banking corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Georgia; and at all times relevant, have been located at 1148
Broadway Columbus, Georgia 31901. Synovus Bank can be properly served
with process through their Registered Agent: Thompson, O’ Brien, Kemp, &
Nasuti, P.C. at their office address: 40 Technology Parkway South, Suite 300,
Norcross, Georgia 30092, in Gwinnett County.
3. Defendant Thompson, O’ Brien, Kemp, & Nasuti, P.C., a Bankruptcy,
Foreclosure, and Debt Collection law firm and who is shown as “Attorney in
Fact” for Synovus Bank, at all times relevant, had offices located at 40
Technology Parkway South, Suite 300, Norcross, Georgia 30092, in Gwinnett
County.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

4. Plaintiff executed a Consumer Deed to Secure Debt for the property at 515
Vaughn Rd., Athens, Georgia 306062, using same property as collateral, on or
around July 6, 2009 in favor of Athens First Bank & Trust (AFB&T).
5. The 515 Vaughn Rd.3 property Deed was duly recorded in the Official
Record of Clarke County in Deed Book 3638, Page 115.
6. Plaintiff merged purchase loan and construction loans, both serviced by
AFB&T, into a single note on or about January 10, 2010.
7. A Modification Agreement to before-mentioned deed was duly recorded in the
Official Record of Clarke County in Deed Book 3697, Page 114, on January 19,
2010 stating $0 Georgia Intangible Tax Paid.
8. Another Modification Agreement to afore-mentioned deed was duly recorded in
the Official Record of Clarke County in Deed Book 3697, Page 530, on January

2
20, 2010 stating $558 Georgia Intangible Tax Paid.
9. Plaintiff refinanced before-mentioned note on or about April 13, 2012, again
with AFB&T.
10. No modification to deed was recorded at this time or any time after.
11. At all times since recordation of Plaintiff’s Deed(s), the loans had been with
AFB&T, until at some point after April 2012, the loan began being serviced by
Synovus, of which AFB&T is a division.

12. On or about March 20, 2014, Plaintiff received correspondence from Synovus
that loan number 7000003155 was to mature on April 13, 2014, and that a large
balloon payment was due on that date.

13. According to the Athens-Clarke County Court Clerk, the Security Deed
recorded in Deed Book 3697, Page 530, stating a Final Payment Date of January
13, 2040, is the most current Deed of record for the subject residential property.

14. Plaintiff does acknowledge a refinanced note beginning on April 13, 2012,
however Plaintiff does not acknowledge that the note signed stated a maturation
date of only 2 years later. Copy of note provided by Defendants is not dated,
witnessed, or notarized. Original, wet-ink note has never been produced.

15. In preparation to refinance this alleged note and seek a new lender, Plaintiff
checked her credit report and discovered numerous errors reported by Synovus.

16. Plaintiff received a Payoff Statement from Synovus that was inconsistent with
proper amortization of her original loan amount.

17. Plaintiff requested for credit reporting errors to be rectified, but to no avail.

18. Plaintiff requested validation of debt in regards to the balloon payment

Defendant claimed was due, but to no avail.

19. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she must pay interest each month until she
3
received financing for alleged balloon payment.

20. Acting in good faith, Plaintiff paid requested interest for two months while
waiting for Defendant to remedy issues regarding credit reporting errors and
incorrect balloon payment.

21. Plaintiff then invoked her right to cease payment on a disputed debt, as
allowed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Plaintiff also verbally informed Defendant
that she refused to pay Defendant pure profit interest money while her consumer
rights continued to be violated.

22. To date, almost two years later, Plaintiff has never received proper validation
of debt as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

23. Plaintiff did, however, receive a new note to sign a refinance of incorrect
balloon amount with Synovus, despite the fact that she provided no loan
application documents, no financial information, or any other document or
authorization form to Synovus.

24. Plaintiff’s credit report shows no inquiry at any time around the creation of
this new note.

25. Defendant’s creation of this new note violates 15 U.S. Code § 1639c, which
cites the Minimum standards for residential mortgage loans.

26. Pertaining to Defendant’s current foreclosure attempt, Defendant mailed an

Acceleration of Debt letter on June 19, 2015, which was received and signed for by
Plaintiff on June 23, 2015.

27. Plaintiff responded on June 29, 2015, with a formal dispute of debt under the
Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), in compliance with her rights
4
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

28. Defendant sent an incomplete response to Plaintiff’s dispute of debt, in clear

violation of RESPA and FDCPA regulations, on July 2, 2015, which was received
and signed for by Plaintiff on July 7, 2015. A duplicate copy was received by
regular mail one day prior on July 6, 2015.

29. Plaintiff responded on July 6, 2015 to Defendant’s incomplete response to her

dispute of debt with another dispute of debt, again under RESPA and FDCPA,
pointing out and requesting missing and incomplete items.

30. Plaintiff received no response to this request.

31. Defendant knowingly, willingly, and wantonly acted in bad faith, and with
blatant disregard of Plaintiff’s property Rights, Federal Law and Georgia Statutes
in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud, and wrongfully foreclose upon subject real
property.

32. Defendant has executed a Notice of Default and Notice of Sale under Power,
without providing Plaintiff proper Notice as required by Georgia law.

33. Plaintiff, only approximately two weeks prior to sale date of August 4, 2015,
was alerted by mail solicitations from law firms and debt solution companies, to
the fact that the Defendant was running a Legal Notice Ad of foreclosure in The
Athens Banner-Herald3 for Plaintiff’s property at 515 Vaughn Rd.

34. Through investigating on the Georgia Public Notice website, Plaintiff

discovered that the Ad in Athens Banner-Herald had been running since July 10,
2015.

35. Plaintiff informed Defendant multiple times that the Notice of Sale was never
received.
3
Athens Banner-Herald is a subscriber/fee based legal news reporting agency.
5
36. Plaintiff and 2 attorneys on her behalf requested proof that Notice of Sale was
either delivered or that there was an attempt to deliver by the United States Postal
Service.

37. Defendant repeatedly refused to provide this information.

38. Defendant knowingly failed to send Plaintiff Notice of Sale Under Power, and
blatantly disregarded Georgia foreclosure law by running a Legal Notice Ad,
which had already run more than two of the required four weeks required by law
by the time Plaintiff became aware.

39. Defendant’s attempt to foreclose upon the subject property blatantly violates
OCGA § 44-14-162.2.

§ 44-14-162.2.  Sales made on foreclosure under power of sale -- Mailing or

delivery of notice to debtor -- Procedure

  (a) Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a

mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by
the secured creditor no later than 30 days before the date of the proposed
foreclosure. Such notice shall be in writing, shall include the name, address,
and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority
to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor,
and shall be sent by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight
delivery, return receipt requested, to the property address or to such other
address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor.
The notice required by this Code section shall be deemed given on the official
postmark day or day on which it is received for delivery by a commercial
delivery firm. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a
secured creditor to negotiate, amend, or modify the terms of a mortgage
instrument.

(b) The notice required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be given
by mailing or delivering to the debtor a copy of the notice of sale to be
submitted to the publisher.

6
 HISTORY: Ga. L. 1981, p. 834, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3; Ga. L. 2001,
p. 1212, § 6; Ga. L. 2008, p. 624, § 2/SB 531.

40. Notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 were changed from 15 days to

30 days May 13, 2008 When Governor Perdue signed into law Senate Bill 531.

41. Defendant neglected to provide Plaintiff “Notice of Default and Notice of

Sale under Power,” as required by O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2 prior to running the
Legal Notice ads.

42. Defendant’s actions violate Plaintiff’s Rights to request Debt Validation

AND receive information that is responsive to her request as a consumer under The
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

43. Defendant knowingly, willingly, wantonly, fraudulently and illegally

continued to pursue the Sale under Power in direct violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Section 809(b):

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 809(b):

(b) “If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within
the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or
any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the
name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall
cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until
the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a
judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a
copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of
the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt
collector.”

44. Defendant knowingly, willingly, wantonly, fraudulently and illegally

continued to pursue the Sale under Power in direct violation of Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, Section 2605:

7
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Section 2605 (12 USC
2605):

If any servicer of a federally related mortgage loan receives a qualified

written request from the borrower (or an agent of the borrower) for
information relating to the servicing of such loan, the servicer shall provide a
written response acknowledging receipt of the correspondence within 20
days……After the receipt from any borrower of any qualified written
request…and, if applicable, before taking any action with respect to the
inquiry of the borrower, the servicer shall-- (A) make appropriate corrections
in the account of the borrower, including the crediting of any late charges or
penalties, and transmit to the borrower a written notification of such
correction (which shall include the name and telephone number of a
representative of the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower);
(B) after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written
explanation or clarification that includes-- (i) to the extent applicable, a
statement of the reasons for which the servicer believes the account of the
borrower is correct as determined by the servicer; and (ii) the name and
telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department
of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower; or (C) after
conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation
or clarification that includes-- (i) information requested by the borrower or
an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be
obtained by the servicer; and (ii) the name and telephone number of an
individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can
provide assistance to the borrower.

8
45. Defendant’s attempt to foreclose upon the subject residential property
violates OCGA § 44-14-162(b).

OCGA § 44-14-162(b) 4:
“The security instrument or assignment thereof vesting the
secured creditor with title to the security instrument shall be filed
prior to the time of sale in the office of the clerk of the superior
court of the county in which the real property is located.”

46. There is no valid Note on the Official Record to secure the above referenced
Security Deed.

47. By defrauding Federal Bankruptcy Court and acting under the guise that
Notice Requirements of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 were met, Defendants requested
and received relief from stay to cry the sale of Plaintiff’s home on August 4, 2015.

48. Defendant claims to have cried the sale on August 4, 2015 and to have
purchased Plaintiff’s property for a mere $175,000.

49. $175,000 is far below the true market value of this property, evidenced by
appraisals and tax values of this and similar, neighboring properties.
50. Mere yards from Plaintiff’s property is a tract of land owned by Athens-
Clarke County, parcel # 064-041B. According to property tax records, this 13-acre
property (just the property, no improvements) is valued at $333,420, and it has
zero river frontage. (See Exhibit CC)
51. Plaintiff’s property is approximately 7 acres with roughly 375 feet of river
frontage, a 2600 square foot house, a large wooden deck overlooking the river, an
in-ground pool, and 2 utility buildings.
52. Using the same value as Clarke County’s adjacent property, value per acre is
$333,420 / 13 = $25,648 per acre. According to these numbers, any person could

4
OCGA § 44-14-162(b).amended by 2008 Ga. Laws 576, OCGA § 1, eff. 5/13/2008
9
safely assume that Plaintiff’s land alone would be worth more than $25,648 x 7
acres, or $179,534, thanks to the river frontage. Any person could also safely
assume that the house, deck, pool, and outbuildings would increase the value
significantly, leaving no possibility whatsoever that the subject property should
ever be sold for $175,000.
53. Despite attempts to have Bankruptcy Court allow them to file a Deed Under
Power, Defendants were never granted this right.

54. On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff was given a piece of certified mail by a postal
worker that was postmarked July 2, 2015. (See Exhibit A)

55. Plaintiff and U.S. Postal delivery person signed and dated the delivery
confirmation receipt. (See Exhibit B)

56. Plaintiff requested that postal worker watch her open the envelope and initial
each page inside said envelope, and postal worker complied voluntarily. The three
pages inside were the Notice of Sale, alleged by Defendant to have been delivered
in early July 2015. (See Exhibit C)

57. Postal worker also signed an affidavit attesting to these facts, witnessed and
notarized by an employee of the State of Georgia. (See Exhibit D)

58. Plaintiff tracked this piece of certified mail containing Notice of Sale using the
U.S. Postal Service website and online tracking feature, finding that the letter was
“undeliverable as addressed” and returned immediately to Defendant. (See
Exhibit E)

59. Since Defendant knowingly, willingly, wantonly, fraudulently and illegally

continued to pursue the Sale under Power in direct violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Section 809(b), RESPA section 2605, and in direct
violation of Notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162, Plaintiff was forced to

10
file bankruptcy in order to stop the illegal sale of her property.

60. Since bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to rule on State Court issues,
Plaintiff must rely upon this court to uphold the law and maintain her consumer
and property rights.

61. There has been no further mortgage, security deed, assignment, lien contract,
transfer or conveyance recorded for the subject properties other than the recently
and fraudulently filed Deed Under Power by the Defendant.

62. Allowing the Sale under Power to be completed by allowing the Deed Under
Power to stand would not only expose Plaintiff to potentially ruinous financial
liability, but would also be a direct violation of The Due Process Clause, and
numerous Constitutional guarantees concerning property.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF TRO and/or

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Beth Ann Van Hoose incorporates fully and by this specific
reference the statements in paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Petition/Complaint as if
stated fully herein.

“A motion for interlocutory injunction or a TRO is an extraordinary motion,

which is time sensitive, unlike other motions, because it seeks to preserve the
status quo until a full hearing can be held to avoid irreparable harm.” Focus
Entertainment International, Inc., v. Partridge Greene, Inc. (253 Ga. App. 121)
(558 SE2d 440) (2001).

The Focus Court went on to explain that foreclosure is one such instance
which “injunction is appropriate” because “when an interest in land is threatened
with harm”, “such harm is deemed to be irreparable to the unique character of the
property interest, i.e., money damages are not adequate compensation to protect the
11
interest harmed.” Foreclosure includes the sale, the filing of a Deed Under Power,
and the dispossession of the borrower from the property, and is not complete until
each of these has occurred. An unlawful foreclosure is an appropriate cause for an
injunction. See the following:

“(a) Land, under Georgia law, is deemed sufficiently unique that

it is entitled to equitable remedies to protect such interest in land.
Rife v. Corbett, 264 Ga. 871 (455 SE2d 581) (1995) (injunction
to protect an easement); Benton v. Patel, 257 Ga. 669, 672 (1)
(362 SE2d 217) (1987) (injunction to stop foreclosure); Black v.
American Vending Co., 239 Ga. 632, 634 (2) (238 SE2d 420)
(1977) ("the law regards as sufficiently unique that equity will
enforce a contract for [land] sale or lease"); Clark v. Cagle, 141
Ga. 703, 705-706 (1) (82 SE 21) (1914) (specific performance of
contract to sell land). Therefore, when an interest in land is
threatened with harm, equitable injunctive relief is appropriate,
because such harm is deemed to be irreparable to the unique
character of the property interest, i.e., money damages are not
adequate compensation to protect the interest harmed. See
generally Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Americus Constr. Co., 133 Ga.
392, 398 (65 SE 855) (1909) (irreparable injury defined to enjoin
a nuisance); see also Roth v. Connor, 235 Ga. App. 866, 868-869
(1) (510 SE2d 550) (1998) (property interests of grantor and
others in restrictive covenants for their benefit).”

Plaintiff has made a showing that without an Emergency Order granting a

Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction, as well as a
cancelation/nullification/set aside of the fraudulent foreclosure sale, and
cancellation and removal of the fraudulently filed Deed Under Power from the
clerk’s records, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed. Further, Plaintiff’s Petition is
Verified, Plaintiff has shown the court, that had she been properly, legally Noticed
before foreclosure actions began, she would have taken the proper steps to prevent
such action. As a matter of fact, Plaintiff has been taking proper steps since April
2014, but to no avail. Plaintiff has further shown the Court that Defendant

12
knowingly acted with blatant disregard of both state and federal laws.

In times such as now, with both mortgage fraud and wrongful foreclosures at
the highest levels in history, it is imperative that courts provide protection for
consumers against such acts. Plaintiff has been denied her Rights repeatedly by
these Defendants, and now stands to lose her home due to their blatant disregard of
the law, their deceptive business and legal practices, their lack of transparency,
their obvious lack of ethical standards, their attempts to circumvent and defraud
this Court, and their negligence of her rights as a consumer and a citizen of the
great State of Georgia and the United States of America. Ms. Van Hoose does not
deserve to lose her home simply because she chose to stand up for herself and
exercise her rights under the law.

O.C.G.A. §9-11-65 allows the Court to grant such Orders without notice to
opposition in certain circumstances.

O.C.G.A. §9-11-65
(b) Temporary restraining order; when granted without notice;
duration; hearing; application to dissolve or modify.
“A temporary restraining order may be granted without written
or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if: (1) It
clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his
attorney can be heard in opposition; and (2) … certifies to the
court, in writing, the efforts, if any, which have been made to
give the notice and the reasons supporting the party's claim that
notice should not be required.”

Further, because Defendant would be required to cease all foreclosure and

eviction proceedings until such time as the legality and appropriateness of
Defendant’s foreclosure actions have been determined by the court, Plaintiff’s
property will not be sold to a third party and then subject to further legal issues
13
upon invalidation of sale. Therefore, allowing the Sale under Power to be
completed by allowing the Deed Under Power to remain would expose Plaintiff to
potentially ruinous financial liability in the event that the Defendant pursues
eviction, or in the event that the actual holder in due course should one day make a
claim upon the Note. Furthermore, the validity of the deed and note utilized by
Defendants to foreclose is legitimately in question and require authentication that
can only be gained by due process in a court of law. Not granting Plaintiff’s
requests will disallow Plaintiff her right to due process and her right to have these
issues heard by a jury of her peers.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose incorporates fully and by this specific reference the
statements in paragraphs 1 through 45 and all paragraphs contained within
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law as if stated fully herein.

Plaintiff in this matter has repeatedly approached the Defendant in the

proper manner as required by law in a good faith attempt to remedy what could
result in the loss of Plaintiff’s property through no fault of her own. The
Defendant, on the other hand, refused to adhere to the mandatory state and federal
laws that would have allowed Plaintiff to receive true, proper, and complete
validation of debt and proper notice of sale, blatantly showing bad faith and a
healthy lack of respect for the laws of this state and nation.

Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose’s rights
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, as well as multiple other State and Federal laws, thereby entitling
Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose to all appropriate relief provided for by statute.

Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose’s rights

14
under OCGA § 44-14-162, thereby entitling Ms. Van Hoose to all appropriate
relief provided for by statute, which includes the setting aside of the sale and
cancellation of Deed Under Power. Where a foreclosure fails to comply with the
statutory duty to provide notice of sale to the debtor in accordance with O.C.G.A. §
44-14-162 et seq., the debtor may seek to set aside the foreclosure. Roylston v.
Bank of Am., N.A., 660 S.E.2d 412, 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Calhoun First
Nat’l Bank v. Dickens, 443 S.E.2d 837, 838 (Ga. 1994)).

Defendants’ actions of filing a Deed Under Power (DUP), despite the fact
that they have asked this court to allow it and not yet received an answer, show
utter disrespect and disregard of this court’s right to decide upon these matters and
of Plaintiff’s consumer rights. By filing this DUP, and by threatening
dispossessory actions, Defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly
litigious, and has caused both the Plaintiff and this Court unnecessary trouble and
expense.
Based on their unethical, loophole-seeking behavior for the past 2 years,
Plaintiff believes that Defendants are purposefully pulling this stunt at this time in
hopes that she will be out of town for the Easter holiday and/or Spring break and
will not be able to receive and/or respond properly in order to stop a default
judgement granting them the ability to evict her from her home.
Defendants do so knowing that if the DUP is filed and Plaintiff is
successfully evicted, Georgia allows no statutory right of redemption after
foreclosure and that Plaintiff will then have no chance to reacquire her own
property if it is sold to a third party.
Allowing 1) the Sale under Power to be completed by not striking this Deed
Under Power from the County record and 2) Defendants to file for a dispossessory
action, would not only expose Plaintiff to potentially ruinous financial liability and

15
undeserved homelessness, but would also be a direct violation of The Due Process
Clause of the 5th and 14th amendments of our Constitution, and numerous
Constitutional guarantees concerning property. Defendants certainly do not have
the right to ignore Plaintiff’s Constitutional guarantee to have the legality of their
documents and actions, including this entire wrongful foreclosure mess, decided
upon by the court.
Plaintiff understands that the heart of the Fifth Amendment right to due
process in the U.S. legal system lies the requirement of providing fair notice to all
parties who may be affected by a legal proceeding. An ex parte proceeding,
conducted with no notice to, or presence of, other parties would seem to violate
that Constitutional right. The courts recognize, however, that circumstances exist
in which waiting for a hearing or waiting to give proper ex parte notice to one
party may cause serious, irreversible harm to another. As Plaintiff has proven, that
is the case here, and Plaintiff begs of the Court to grant the requested relief
immediately. Plaintiff prays that the Court keep in mind that if the DUP is allowed
and Plaintiff is evicted, Georgia allows no statutory right of redemption after
foreclosure and that Plaintiff will then have no chance to reacquire her own
property, therefore robbing her of relief to which she is entitled by law. Plaintiff
would like to point out that Defendants have utterly disregarded her rights,
including her right to be properly noticed. Therefore Plaintiff feels Defendants do
not deserve notice on this motion.
Despite the pending case filed in September 2015, Defendants have, six
months after the filing of the original complaint, and 8 months after the unlawful
foreclosure sale, filed a Deed Under Power and demanded possession of Ms. Van
Hoose’s property by March 30, 2016. Defendants do this despite the fact that they
have motioned this court to allow the filing of the DUP, but have yet to receive an
answer. Due to the immediacy of this threat and the unnecessary trouble a
16
dispossessory hearing will certainly cause, Plaintiff begs the Court to grant
requested relief ex parte. An ex parte ruling is the only way Ms. Van Hoose can
be granted relief, as Defendant has vowed to proceed with dispossessory actions in
only two days. If the Court cannot agree to an ex parte ruling, Ms. Van Hoose
prays that a hearing date is set before dispossessory actions commence.

Plaintiff understands that due to the multiple Federal questions involved in

her complaint, this case should be heard in Federal Court. Upon filing of an
Amended Complaint, made necessary by, among other things, Defendants’ actions
since the filing of the original complaint, Plaintiff would like to see this case
moved to the appropriate court. However, at this time, Plaintiff must beg of this
court to prevent Defendants from causing further harm. In order to be protected
until the merits of this case are heard in the appropriate venue, Plaintiff prays that
the court will grant her the requested relief.

Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose truly regrets the emergency nature of this petition
and prays the Courts GRANT the following relief:

(a) GRANT an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction to

prevent Defendants from any attempt to evict Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose from her
property or any filing of a dispossessory action in any court, and to prevent any
further debt collection or foreclosure attempts until Ms. Van Hoose can have this
case decided by the court through due process.

(b) ORDER that the foreclosure sale be set aside due to failure to provide proper
notice as required by Georgia law, insufficiency of sale price, and disregard of

17
multiple other State and Federal laws.

(c) ORDER that the Deed Under Power, filed by Defendants in Deed Book 4440,
page 171 in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia Record, be cancelled, nullified, and
stricken from the record.

(d) GRANT Plaintiff Ms. Van Hoose any and all other and/or further relief allowed
by law and/or which this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2016.

By: ____________________________
BETH ANN VAN HOOSE, Pro Se
515 Vaughn Rd.
Athens, GA 30606
478-954-3567

18
 VERIFICATION

I, Plaintiff Beth Ann Van Hoose, having been duly sworn, under penalty of
perjury, deposes and says that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and mentally
competent to testify in this matter. My person, my family, my pets, and my
property are in danger of immediate and irreparable injury, and loss or damage will
result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in
opposition; and I hereby Certify, that the facts set forth regarding all matters stated
in the above paragraphs are true and correct, therefore since this is an Emergency
Petition further notice should not be required. I personally drafted and have read
the foregoing pleading, the facts stated therein are from first-hand knowledge and
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

This 28th day of March, 2016.

_________________________
BETH ANN VAN HOOSE

Subscribed and sworn to before me,

this 28th day of March, 2016.

Seal

_______________________________

print _______________________________
My Commission Expires: ______________

19
Appendix of Exhibits

Exhibit A: Certified mail envelope postmarked July 2, 2015. USPS Certified Mail
# 91 7199 9991 7034 4182 0427.

Exhibit B: delivery confirmation receipt for USPS Certified Mail # 91 7199 9991
7034 4182 0427.

Exhibit C: Notice of Sale letter, initialed by USPS Delivery Worker

Exhibit D: Notarized Affidavit by USPS Delivery Worker

Exhibit E: USPS tracking of Certified Mail # 91 7199 9991 7034 4182 0427

Exhibit EE: USPS tracking of Certified Mail # 91 7199 9991 7034 4182 0427,
before update after delivery

Exhibit F: excerpt from USPS’s published Domestic Mail Manual, explaining

USPS treatment of mail protocols

Exhibit CC: Tax Assessor’s information for comparison property with map to
show proximity of properties

20
21
Exhibit B

22
23
24
25
26
27
Exhibit EE:

28
Exhibit F:

Excerpt from United States Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual, section 507:

*Domestic Mail Manual in its entirety can be viewed at

pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/.../507.pdf

29
Exhibit CC

Circular property is 064-

041B, owned by Clarke
County. Plaintiff’s property
is colored in yellow.

30