This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Filed 01/10/11 Page 1 of 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WENDY N. JENKINS, ELEANOR SPRATLIN CRAWFORD, each Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all Georgia residents similarly situated. ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) McCALLA RAYMER, LLC, THOMAS A. ) SEARS, ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY, AS AN ) OFFICER OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC, AS AN ) OFFICER OF WELLS FARGO, AND AS ) AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER) CHARLES TROY CROUSE, ESQ., aka C. ) TROY CROUSE ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY, ) AS AN OFFICER OF MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ) SYSTEMS, INC, AS AN OFFICER OF ) WELLS FARGO AND AS AN EMPLOYEE) OF McCALLA RAYMER, MERSCORP ) INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BAC ) HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP., fka ) COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS ) SERVICING, LP.,WELLS FARGO BANK, ) N.A., PROMMIS SOLUTIONS, LLC., ) PROMMIS SOLUTIONS HOLDING INC., ) GREAT HILL PARTNERS, INC., ) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSYTEMS INC. ) AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, ) TAYLOR BEAN &WHITAKER, ) CRYSTAL WILDER, INDIVIDUALLY, ) AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN ) EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER, ) ELIZABETH LOFARO, INDIVIDUALLY,) AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN ) EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER, ) CHIQUITA RAGLIN, INDIVIDUALLY, )
CASE NO. 10-CV-3732-CAP-AJB
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY
Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1
Filed 01/10/11 Page 2 of 22
AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER, VICTORIA MARIE ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER, IRIS GISELLA BEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER, JAMELA REYNOLDS, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER AND LATASHA DANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW, Wendy Jenkins and Eleanor Spratlin Crawford, each Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all Georgia residents similarly situated, and respectfully RESPOND to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and shows this Honorable Court as follows: Plaintiffs have plead “enough facts to State a Claim to relief that is plausible on its face” as required by law and required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
FACTS OF THE CASE This action is a Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the
injunction of various foreclosure and eviction proceedings, as representatives for
agents and employees. Lenders.C. § 23-2-114. together with damages and other relief. law firms. Such entities foreclose and advertise for foreclosure and take steps toward foreclosure. each of them either Bankers. without having first obtained proper and legally valid assignments of the mortgages and the power of sale on property they purport to foreclose. In recent years. Counsels. bankers.A. Plaintiffs seek relief on their own behalf.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 3 of 22 themselves and of that Class of homeowners similarly situated. lenders. many foreclosing entities. and on behalf of all Georgia Property owners similarly situated. document preparers.G. if not thousands. individuals. from the named Defendants jointly and severally. of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and Georgia Case law and voidable under Federal Laws. based upon the Defendants. through their Attorneys. document preparers. their agents and employees have dispensed with the fundamental requirements prerequisite to foreclosure in Georgia Code O. including Defendant attorneys. document preparers and their agents and employees acting in concert and their routine failure to comply with statutory prerequisites to foreclosure. who routinely conduct and maintain wrongful foreclosure practices and . servicers. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent also seek a determination of the validity of foreclosure sales held in violation of statutory requirements. Hundreds. Attorneys at Law.
the fees or the irregular amortization of the principal in . GA. Columbus. BAC Home Loan Servicing. . improperly credited and or misapplied payments to the principal balance of the note and refused to provide documentation or legal justification for the debt. injunction of upcoming sales where there is no proof of a valid assignment. and their alleged predecessor(s). Bank of America and Does. who repeatedly and willfully acted fraudulently in that they improperly added fees to the balance of the loan. and a cancellation of fees and costs related to invalid sales. 2008 she refinanced her property located at7372 Cedar Creek Loop. damages against entities who initiated wrongful foreclosure procedures and declaratory relief and injunctive relief conducted by entities who do not hold the Power of Sale nor the instrument upon which the proof of debt is based and injunction of eviction action pending procedures to verify the validity of underlying sales. 2009. FACTS OF PLAINTIFF WENDY JENKINS Plaintiff Wendy Jenkins is a married woman who owns a home and on or about July 3. processing and penalties. damages as required by law and a Jury Trial of 12 Jurors.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 4 of 22 procedures. Plaintiff Jenkins executed a Note and Security Deed in favor of Taylor Bean and Whitaker who later abruptly closed its doors on August 5. assessments. 31904. Plaintiff Jenkins made payments to Taylor Bean and Whittaker.
C..Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 5 of 22 violation of the laws of the State of Georgia and Federal Laws. and other named Defendants. Charles Troy Crouse. in an attempt to conceal and cover-up the deficiencies in their attempted foreclosure where defendants had not complied with the statutes as required by the Georgia Code. In addition. Esq. Plaintiff Jenkins’ Note and Security Deed were bifurcated and the deed alone was separated from the note and her note has been pledged.C. hypothecated and /or assigned as collateral security to an unknown entity.C. they refused payment and repeatedly returned Plaintiff’s attempts to tender payment. Esq.2. §26A-2 (6). §44-14-162. Thomas A.A. §44-14-162(b) and O.. specifically O. false and fraudulent representations were made by Defendant McCalla Raymer as to the ownership of plaintiff’s note and Security Deed. and its’ attorneys violated Georgia Law. foreign trust or to an agency of the United States government or the Federal Reserve. Plaintiff Jenkins was notified by Defendant McCalla Raymer with letters that Plaintiff’s home was to be foreclosed upon by persons who they knew or should have known had no legal rights to plaintiff’s home. containing false and fraudulent information from MERS to BAC to be recorded upon the Public Records of . Defendants McCalla Raymer LLC. Further. created documents and caused purported assignments (Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C”). Defendants McCalla Raymer LLC.A.G.G.G. O..A. Sears.
BAC. and Countrywide (which was bought and absorbed by Bank of America in 2008). Crouse and Sears submitted as part of their pleadings. the Note and the attendant Power of Sale on February 2. attempted to wrongfully foreclose upon Plaintiff’s home using this purported assignment. 1997. There is no document. Thomas A. after entering default and then attempting to “open default” Defendants McCalla. 2010. 2010. Nothing in these documents granted Defendants McCalla. Sears. Plaintiff Crawford executed a Note and . 2010. in evidence that grants any power or authority related to this property. Crouse and Sears on February 2. and Charles Troy Crouse. which presented documents which purport to be multiple “Agreement for Signing Authority” and “Corporate Resolution” contracts by and between McCalla Raymer.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 6 of 22 Muscogee County on April 14. to Defendants McCalla. Defendants McCalla Raymer LLC. 2010 and April 26. Esq. Esq . a verified answer. Defendants McCalla acting as an agent for. and scheduled a Sale Under Power for May 5. these documents were dated April 21.. 2010. FACTS OF PLAINTIFF ELANOR SPRATLIN CRAWFORD On or about August 11. When challenged in the Superior Court of Muscogee County. 2010. Crouse and Sears the power or authority to execute an Assignment of the Deed. MERS.. inter alia. or representing Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing and Defendants Bank of America.
which she was willing and able to pay immediately. This was due to having suffered four (4) deaths within four months within her immediate family. She fell behind because of contributing to funeral and burial costs for her deceased family members which included her husbands’ mother. When she attempted to make that payment to ASC. .Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 7 of 22 Security Deed. At some time unbeknownst to Plaintiff Crawford. §1692K et seq.S. being mindful of her obligations called ASC and obtained an amount to “cure” her default.” These fees are inflated and improper under FDCPA 15 U. Plaintiff Crawford was given an inflated amount of over double the previously quoted amount. Plaintiff Crawford contacted McCalla Raymer in order to cure her default and was told to contact Prommis Solutions.. Plaintiff Crawford admits that she was in arrears in regards to four months of mortgage payments in May of 2009. in favor of NationsBank due to a refinancing of the subject Property. She was told that she had to make a payment of Sixty Two Hundred dollars ($6200. Plaintiff Crawford. she was told that it was due to “fees and costs associated with your foreclosure. Upon contacting Prommis Solutions. she was told that she had call McCalla Raymer and/ or Prommis Solutions.00).C. When she questioned the amount. ASC acquired the servicing rights to the subject loan and began servicing the loan.
§ 45-17-5. O. among them.G. 2009.A. had not been given a commission as a Notary Public on the date the “assignment” purports to have been executed.A.C.C. Ms.A.C. § 23-2-114. Defendants caused an alleged Assignment of the Security Deed and Note securing the subject property to be recorded upon the land records of Cobb County. Defendant Crystal Wilder. which specifically states. Wilder was not given a Notary commission until May 15. 2009 according the Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority’s website. which is searchable under the tab “Notary Index”. in clear and unambiguous language: “It is unlawful for any person to hold himself or herself out as a notary public or to exercise the powers of a notary public unless such person has an unexpired commission as a notary public.G. and O.G.G. .” Defendants Crouse and Sears’ alleged signatures appear upon the face of this document. 44-14-61. Additionally.A. 44-5-64. (See “Exhibit A” attached hereunto) This alleged Assignment violates various Georgia statutes. this alleged assignment violates O.A.C. This alleged Assignment is defective upon its face as the person who purported to have notarized it. O.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 8 of 22 On or about June 23. 2009. Georgia. O. specifically. February 2.C.G. § 44-14-33.
at some time subsequent to that date. Defendants Wells. an actual notary.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 9 of 22 Defendants McCalla acting as an agent for. Plaintiff Spratlin obtained a Temporary Restraining Order. attempted to wrongfully foreclose upon Plaintiff’s home using this purported assignment. 2010. was that. but in fact amends nothing.84) to the Defendants. 2009. which Defendants Sears and Crouse also allegedly signed. Defendants were successful at getting the Temporary Restraining Order dissolved. after paying into the Court’s registry the sum of $17.484. On September 24. other than the dates involved. The sole change. FACTS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT . Georgia. 485. the Court released the monies ($17. This document was labeled “Amended Assignment”. Defendants Prommis Solutions caused to be recorded upon the land records of Cobb County. in Deed Book 14806 Page 172 another alleged “assignment” of Plaintiff Crawford’s Security Deed and Note. 2010. this time. allegedly executed on October 15. or representing Defendant Wells Fargo. and scheduled a Sale Under Power for July 7. stamped and signed the document. and McCalla Raymer sought to have the Temporary Restraining Order dissolved. On or about October 19. 2009. On or about July 1. 2010. with a valid notary commission.84.
Defendant Sears and Defendant Crouse.G. § 44-14-164 for the transferring of secured instruments”. Plaintiffs have clearly alleged that all named Defendants were “joint venturers” and sought merely to clarify that any action taken in furtherance of such joint venture was not necessarily committed by each and every defendant individually. “BAC Servicing” and “ASC” followed all of the requirements set forth in O.A. Defendants insist that they have complied with all prerequisites to a nonjudicial foreclosure all the while ignoring that their own documents do not support their arguments that “MERS”.C. For example. Plaintiff Jenkins’ “assignment” contains a latent defect. Clearly. Defendant Allen and Defendant are each responsible for their own actions and Plaintiffs would not want to tar one with the other’s actions and wish to define such actions even though such actions are in furtherance of a unlawful or illegal joint fraudulent venture. Although Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are being “intentionally vague” is entirely incorrect. Specifically.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 10 of 22 Defendants’ assertions of a “shotgun pleading” notwithstanding. . Defendant’s Sear’s and Crouse’s alleged signatures appear on each of the assignments for both plaintiffs but the fraudulent notarization of the “assignment” for Plaintiff Jenkins was executed by Defendant Victoria Marie Allen and the fraudulent and purported notarization for Plaintiff Crawford’s “assignment” was Crystal Wilder. Plaintiffs have made their case in a manner which is clear as to which claims apply to Defendants McCalla.
they completely ignore the fact that without a valid assignment of the Security Deed. Defendants then claim that Plaintiffs claims for wrongful foreclosure are “unsupportable” under Georgia law.. and the Note. standing is not conferred and ultimately. App. 2009. any attempt to foreclosure the subject properties is fraudulent. contrary to Leeds' arguments. 2010 to transfer anything from “MERS” to anyone. by the last transferee. 219 Ga. 349. Defendant Sear and Defendant Crouse had no right or authority on February 2. Leeds Building Products.G. dated April 4. Plaintiff Crawford’s “assignment”. specifically. shall be signed by the grantee or.E. While defendants go to great pains to make a point that possession of the “original note” is not a prerequisite to non-judicial foreclosure in Georgia. and shall be witnessed as required for deeds. but they ignore Weiblen v. if the deed has been previously transferred. The fact . And. 2013” clearly demonstrates that the notary was acting outside the four year term of a valid notary commission.2d 907 (1995) which specifically states: “Furthermore.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 11 of 22 which is that Defendants McCalla. 464 S. neither the Deed nor the Note is transferred. § 44-14-64 which clearly states: (a) All transfers of deeds to secure debt shall be in writing. contains a patent defect because it is easily determined that the “notary” stamp bearing the phrase “my commission expires on May 14.C. it is not necessary that the foreclosure be completed to bring an action for wrongful foreclosure. Clearly this document does not comply with the requirements of O.A. Inc.
Defendants further contend that there have been no allegations of fraud within the complaint going so far as to claim the “only allegations” to support Plaintiffs claim of fraud are questions about the signatures of Defendants Sears and Crouse. both Plaintiff Jenkins’ and Plaintiff Crawford’s properties have been advertised for sale. . Plaintiff Crawford’s property was advertised in the Marietta Daily Journal.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 12 of 22 that Leeds initiated foreclosure proceedings by advertising the properties for sale is sufficient to support a claim for wrongful foreclosure. which is a general circulation newspaper and the county’s legal organ. Plaintiff Jenkins’s property was advertised in the Muscogee County Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Additionally. Plaintiffs have laid out. with particularity. the fraudulent conduct in regards to Plaintiff Crawford’s “assignment”. which is a general circulation newspaper and the county’s legal organ.” In the instant case. Plaintiffs show that there have been allegations of fraud. specifically averring that Defendants McCalla deliberately manufactured documents which purport to give Defendants Sears and Crouse authority to sign as Officers of “MERS” and/or the banks named as Defendants thereby falsely representing themselves to have held the authority to assign Plaintiff Jenkins’ Security Deed and Note. Their erroneous contentions notwithstanding.
the court in a non-judicial foreclosure due process of law. Further. Defendant Sears and Defendant Crouse’s fraudulent and false misrepresentation were intended to deprive Plaintiff Jenkins of her property and induce her into relying upon their authority as agents of the holder of her note to assign her property as Defendant Sears and Defendant Crouse signed as either “Vice President” or “Assistant Secretary” of MERS. as to the element of a false representation.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 13 of 22 Each element of the of fraud have been addressed in the Original Complaint. “BAC Servicing”. the act of “assigning” Plaintiff Jenkins’ property without the authority to do so is a false and fraudulent misrepresentation of Defendant Sears’ and Defendant Crouse’s ability to act for “ MERS”. causing false and fraudulent and fictitious representation in the public . false and fraudulent. It is axiomatic that Defendant Sears. the presence of a notary stamp gives the appearance of legality of the assignment even though the alleged notary was not commissioned. Bank of America or any other entity after examining the title that the documents they were executing in furtherance of foreclosure were without authority. Defendants McCalla’s subsequent actions in pursuing a wrongful foreclosure are a continuation of that false misrepresentation. Falsely representing that the document was properly executed. In regards to Plaintiff Crawford. Defendant Crouse and Defendant McCalla would have to know or should have known when they entered into a contract with “MERS”. thereby depriving the Plaintiff Crawford.
In the case where an actual secured creditor is foreclosing upon its own loan. Even a non-judicial foreclosure state requires that the secured creditor be the one who forecloses upon property. Again. Defendants are plainly wrong in that they have not collected any fees. Disbursement of $17.485. there can be no argument that mortgage foreclosure distinct and different from a collection of other sorts of . it is commonly accepted that anyone bearing those titles are indeed Officers of the corporation they represent and as such the General Public relies upon those titles to confer authority to exercise the correct authority to act on the behalf of the corporation they hold themselves out to represent. Outside of the artifice set up by MERS that “certifying officers” are indeed “Vice Presidents” or “Assistant Secretaries”. into believing that their property had indeed been properly conveyed and thus refrain from acting because of their reliance upon the fraudulent documents. and the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have been damaged due to having been subjected to wrongful foreclosure of their properties. Such misrepresentation would lull the ordinary public. they ignore the fraudulent basis for their claims of standing. Defendants also claim that FDCPA does not apply to them in that they are a law firm seeking to foreclose a mortgage.84 has been made from the Cobb County Court’s registry.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 14 of 22 record of the Clerk of the Superior Court that the property had been properly conveyed.
they are just as culpable as Defendant Sears.Ed.S. and Defendant Crouse in engaging in these misleading representations. neither of the Banks are the actual secured creditor by virtue of not having been the original lender. 2863 . et. however. Rini. Ct. Jenkins.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 15 of 22 debt.2d 395 (1995) which held that law firms were “debt collectors” and also ignore the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Jerman v. or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. al. 129 S. Since Defendant McCalla sent the notices of Sale under Power and placed the newspaper publications. Defendants argue that because they are a law firm seeking foreclosure of property they are exempt from FDCPA.A. 115 S.P. Kramer & Ulrich. Carlisle. In the instant case.C. v. but ignore Heintz. and not having a valid assignment to rely upon to create such standing.Ct. there have been no “unintentional errors” but rather a violation of 15 U. 131 L. deceptive. 514 U. McNellie.Supreme Court (2010) which held that law firms are liable under FDCPA even for “unintentional errors”. L. . 1489. Here.S. 291.” It is axiomatic that holding oneself out to have standing to foreclose without possessing such standing is a misleading representation. § 1692f § 807et seq which states in pertinent part: “A debt collector may not use any false.
.R. 479. Inc. Section 1964(c) allows a private party. to sue for damages. RICO Claims. In the instant case.L.P. in the case of those 15 (fifteen) fraudulent assignments. Plaintiffs have shown in their “Plaintiffs’ Response To Defendants’ Opposition To Motion For Extension Of Time And Motion To Dismiss” that there is a pattern of racketeering activities due to the filing of at least 15 (fifteen) similar fraudulent assignments in Deed Book 14703 of the Cobb County Land Records.2d 346 (1985) (footnote omitted). interstate . who has been injured in his property from a RICO violation. 3275." Subsection (d) criminalizes a conspiracy to violate one of the other subsections of § 1962." Sedima. 105 S. to conduct or participate. directly or indirectly.Section 1962(c) of the RICO Act makes it "unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in . 496. 7 (seven) of them have been foreclosed and have had Deeds of Foreclosure issued by Defendants McCalla and sometimes signed by Defendants Crouse and Sears. 87 L. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants arguments are unavailing but will briefly address the remaining claims. commerce.. . Imrex Co. the Plaintiffs must show "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity..Ct. 473 U.S... v. S..Ed.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 16 of 22 Defendants allege that all remaining claims are predicate upon the claims addressed supra. To state a RICO claim. in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. furthermore.
. among them that they are acting as agents for their “lender clients”. Co.C.A.When pled as RICO predicate acts. Servs. Inc. (2) intent to defraud. In the instant case.1 (b) states in pertinent part: Punitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence” In the instant case.as discussed supra. v. mail and wire fraud require a showing of: (1) a plan or scheme to defraud. Fin. there is abundant “foreseeabilty” that mail and wires are used in the furtherance of this fraud. Defendants seek dismissal of themselves due to a variety of unavailing reasons. Civil conspiracy . 1069 & n.G. since there has been no certification of class status as of yet. In conclusion. and (4) actual use of the mail or wires to further the scheme.A. dismissal of these claims is premature. Scherer Bros. O. 48 F. 6 (8th Cir. Punitive damages – as the case is in its infancy.3d 1066. Although they are acting as agents of their “lender clients” O. § 10-6-85 explicitly provides: . (3) reasonable foreseeability that the mail or wires will be used. there is abundant evidence that multiple actual tort violations have been committed upon the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.C. which will be supported more fully during discovery. nothing has been “proven” as to the class.G. See Murr Plumbing.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 17 of 22 Wire fraud .1995) (noting that a RICO claim does not require proof of misrepresentation of fact). § 51-12-5.
. and it makes no difference that in doing so he acts in good faith. if not thousands. in the case of an agent. he shall not be responsible. Wilson.” Additionally. does so at his peril. may render themselves individually liable. Defendants take the posture that these are mere “technical” defects when in fact. Sears and Crouse are all responsible for their own actions. also. these “technical defects” have impacted hundreds. whether acting by command of his principal or not. of Georgia’s most precious asset. for his own tortious act. so. he shall be responsible. in Miller & Miller v. employed by him in behalf of his principal. the Georgia Supreme Court held: “Whoever meddles with another's property.” In the instant case. which include manufacturing documents which purport to “transfer” Security Deeds and Note on Real Property without having the authority to do so and without complying with the requirements that deed be properly attested. Defendants McCalla. nor. whether as principal or agent. by an express undertaking to that effect. its’ citizens. Every agent exceeding the scope of his authority shall be individually liable to the person with whom he deals. for the negligence of his underservant.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 18 of 22 “All agents. that he delivers the property to his principal before receiving notice of the claim of the owner.
2011. GA 30311 (404) 752-5082 .Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 19 of 22 Wherefore. 367800 Attorney for Plaintiffs 2016 Sandtown Road. SW Atlanta. /s/ Louise T. Further. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is Premature before Discovery. Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. Hornsby Louise T. This 10th day January. Hornsby Georgia Bar No.
Jr. Myers. LLC. c/o Legal Department . c/o Legal Department 1818 Library St. Prommis Solutions. Thomas Howell. Esq. Esq. Thomas A. Esq. Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank. J. Lisa K. Esq. Esq. Esq.. N. BAC Home Loan T.. Esq.. VA 20190 MERSCORP.S. Esq. Esq. John P. Counsel for McCalla Raymer. Counsel for Bank of American. Finley. William M. Mail with the proper postage affixed to the following: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 20 of 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the Plaintiffs’ Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following attorney of record: John H. MacNaughton. Iris Gisella Bey and Latasha Daniel Linda S.A. Esq. Steven Flynt. Rose. Ed Novotny. Chiquita raglan. Counsel for McCalla Raymer. Inc. Prommis Solutions Holding. Thomas A. Inc. Sears and Charles Troy Crouse And the same by placing a copy in the U. Suite 300 Reston. Ryan Mock. Elizabeth Lofaro. Williamson. Crystal Wilder. Inc. NA. LLC. Counsel for Great Hill Partners. Inc. Esq. LLC. Davis. Allen C. Sears and Charles Troy Crouse Reese Willis.
s/Louise T. VA 22182 This 10th day of January. 2011. Hornsby Louise T. 367800 HORNSBY & ASSOCIATES 2016 Sandtown Road Atlanta. Counsel for Plaintiffs Georgia Bar No. Esq.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 21 of 22 1595 Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna. Georgia 30311 (404) 752-5082 (404) 758-5337 fax . Hornsby.
Georgia 30311 (404) 752-5082 (404) 758-5337 fax . Hornsby Louise T. s/Louise T.Case 1:10-cv-03732-CAP -AJB Document 17-1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 22 of 22 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This is to certify that this document was prepared in Times Roman. 14 point font that complies with this Court’s Rules. Esq. Hornsby. 367800 HORNSBY & ASSOCIATES 2016 Sandtown Road Atlanta. Counsel for Plaintiffs Georgia Bar No.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.