UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Middle District of Florida

Orlando Division

) Case No. 6:20-cv-01441-Orl-37LRH

Gregory Kevin Samuels )
)
Plaintiff(s)
)
-v-
) Jury Trial: Yes No
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WMC Mortgage, LLC and GE Captial Inc. )
Defendant(s) )
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE

COMES NOW Gregory K. Samuels, (“Plaintiff” or “Samuels”), in Pro Se, and submits this
Complaint to the Court that demands GQ Holding 1329, LLC., (“Defendants” or “GQ”), Mortgage
Electronic Systems, (“Defendants” or MERS”), “WMC Mortgage LLC”, (“Defendants” or
“WMC”), Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Of Florida,) Capital Corp., Kondaur Capital Corporation,
Tyler T. Stiglich, to answer the Complaint that arises from asserting claims for wrongful
foreclosure, fraud and unlawful trade practices in violation of the State of Florida and federal law.
The Complaint asserts, Damages, Declaratory and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Penalties for
Fraud, Unclean Hands and denial of Due Process.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Gregory K. Samuels, is a Florida resident at 806 West Lake Mann Dr., Orlando,

Florida 32805 and the property is located at 25 South Ortman Drive, Orlando Florida 32805

1
(“property”) and is the subject of this action.

2. Defendants, GQ Holding, LLC., is a Limited Liability Corporation in Parkland, Florida,

doing business in the State of Florida and have established contacts with Florida, and therefore is

subject to jurisdiction in U.S. Circuit Court in the State of Florida.

3.

2
4. Defendants, MERSCORP aka Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., is an

Incorporated Company in Reston Virginia, doing business in the State of Florida and have

established contacts with Florida, and therefore is subject to jurisdiction in U.S. Circuit Court in

the State of Florida.

5. Defendants, WMC Mortgage, is a Limited Liability Corporation in Woodland Hills,

California, doing business in the State of Florida and have established contacts with Florida, and

therefore is subject to jurisdiction in U.S. Circuit Court in the State of Florida. On or about

September 21, 2020, it was brought to Plaintiff’s attention through pleadings subject to this matter,

that WMC filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on April 23, 2019. The notice was published in the Miami

Herald which is a separate county and hours away from Orange County which is where both the

subject property is located, and Plaintiff resides. Therefore, jurisdiction over WMC is proper.

6. Defendants, FV-I Morgan Stanley Mortgage, is a Limited Liability Corporation in New

York, doing business in the State of Florida and have established contacts with Florida, and

therefore is subject to jurisdiction in U.S. Circuit Court in the State of Florida.

7. Defendants, Kondaur Capital Corporation, is a Limited Liability Corporation in Orange,

California, doing business in the State of Florida and have established contacts with Florida, and

therefore is subject to jurisdiction in U.S. Circuit Court in the State of Florida.

8. Defendant, Tyler T. Stiglich, is the current owner of 25 South Ortman Drive, Orlando

Florida 32805 and is the property subject to this Complaint. As such is being placed on noticed.

Discovery may reveal an unclear title and Defendant as owner should be in the known.

9. Venue for this action is proper in Orlando, Orange County, Florida as the location of the

property is located in Florida and is the subject of this action.

3
 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

10. Plaintiff, funded a loan on January 6, 2006 and executed, a Promissory Note ("Note") to

WMC MORTGAGE CORP (“WMC”). in order to finance the purchase, the real property in which

the basis for litigation. A copy of the Note is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as

Exhibit “A”.

11. On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff, executed and delivered a first purchase money

4
mortgage (the "Mortgage") which was recorded by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

INC. ("MERS") as “assignor” for WMC securing the Note to WMC. The Mortgage was recorded

in Official Records Book 8464, Page 3231 of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida. A

copy of the Mortgage is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B”.

12. The property in litigation is the subject complaint and the right of possession is in dispute

because it is a residential mortgage transaction in which the Note and Mortgage was created to

secure the purchase of the property in security for the financing of the acquisition of the property.

15 USC § 1602. Ownership was transferred to Plaintiff. Mortgage and Note were separated by

WMC when MERS registered the transfer of the Mortgage to FV-1 “breaking the chain” of note

and mortgage ownership.

13. On April 5, 2006, Plaintiff, was provided a Modification of Note (the "Modification") to

WMC which to his belief cancelled the loan and was returned the closing cost from WMC by

acknowledgement of WMC, to his belief the loan was no longer valid.

14. On September 2, 2008, the Note and Mortgage were assigned from MERS as “assignor”

in what is listed as “WMC to FV-1”, by Assignment of Mortgage, which transferred “in blank” the

rights to the Note and Mortgage. Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) as the mortgagee.

Such assignments generally are in recordable form, but unrecorded, and are executed by the transferor

without identifying a specific transferee, as assignment “in blank.” When a mortgage and note is

originated with MERS as the “nominee” mortgagee (or is assigned to MERS post-origination),

MERS tracks all future mortgage transfers and mortgage loan servicing transfers and other

assignments of the mortgage and unless and until ownership or servicing is transferred to an entity

that is not a MERS member. In this

5
respect, MERS serves as a central system to track changes in ownership and servicing of the mortgage

servicing and note but does not actually own the mortgage or the note and therefore lacks standing

to dispose of without signed authorization of the owner. The Assignment of Mortgage of the

Plaintiff was recorded in Official Records Book 9764, Page 1980 of the Public Records of Orange

County, Florida on September 19, 2008. A copy of the Assignment is attached as Exhibit "D".

15. On July 8, 2010, the Note and Mortgage were assigned from MERS a non- owner to

Kondaur Capital Corporation (“KCC”), via an Assignment of Mortgage, in the State of Texas by

notary public Barbara Janine Whetworth (or to the effect) PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE

ME the undersigned in a for the aforesaid County…which transferred all rights and title to the Note

and Mortgage. Signed by Steven Roark, Vice President of MERS, who claims personally to have

appeared before notary in Texas. This is a breaking of the chain of custody. The Original Note

holder WMC lacks evidence of Assignment of Mortgage to MERS by WMC to assign a Mortgage

to FV-1. The Assignment of Mortgage was recorded in Official Records Book 10080, Page 8112

of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida on July 27, 2010. Exhibit “E”. ( MERS was

developed by MersCorp and is not owned, operated, or controlled by the FDIC. As such, MersCorp

and its affiliated vendor(s) are responsible for ensuring the data is accurate and up to date. The

core data contained in the system is input and checked for completeness by MERS members who

originate/service loans with MERS as the mortgagee. With FDIC as Receiver, authorized FDIC

employees and contractors, as well as retained failed bank employees, will review and check data

for completeness by comparing it against master mortgage files obtained from the failed financial

institution. The FDIC reports this

6
in September 2010.)

16. On January 19, 2011 Plaintiff filed a motion that granted relief made by Attorney Kel in

which the relief was granted without prejudice. This was based on a Motion filed that, I believe

removed, dismissed the case ending the FV-1 right to lay claim on the property.

17. On August 12, 2011, Stanton and Gasdick attorneys for the GQ Holding, LLC. change the

caption and style in what can only be as an attempt to maintain standing from previous party that

no longer had the Note.

18. On January 27, 2012, the Note and Mortgage were assigned from KCC to Defendant, GQ

Holding, LLC., via an Assignment of Mortgage in the State of California by notary public Phoung

B. Lam-Nguyen, undersigned in a for the aforesaid County…which allegedly transferred all rights

and title to the Note and Mortgage. Signed by Hangh D. Nguyen, Collateral Manager of Kondaur

Capital Corporation. A copy of the transfer is attached as Exhibit "F".

19. Plaintiff, upon his belief is the Mortgage was separated from the Note by the closing of

the Note by WMC as previously stated. Note was assigned to MERS and further divided by

Assignment of Mortgage by “nominee” and not the Note owner WMC.

20. Mr. Samuels, had depositions scheduled on January 6, 2012, when the opposing attorney

Stanton and Gasdick withdrew from representing and subsequently ended the depositions.

21. Plaintiffs’ attorney then files the Discovery for admissions on February 3, 2012 to the

Defendants which were seated as Plaintiff at that time.

7
 22. On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff, was given a notice of default ("Notice"), per the Note and

Mortgage.

23. On [date], Defendant Tyler T. Stiglich purchase the property and may be in possession of

needed documents to support the allegations stated throughout the Complaint.

24. All conditions precedent to this action are factual and have been made, stated or otherwise

disposed.

COUNT I - FRAUD

(Fraudulent signature on the “Notice of Right to Cancel “ of WMC and Fraudulent selling of
note and mortgage)

25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if

stated herein.

26. Plaintiff identifies in the following paragraphs acts of fraud by factual, legal and genuine

issues of the foreclosure and subsequent sale and is reiterated in every paragraph as such is stated

therein.

27. Defendants, GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, aka

MERSCORP WMC MORTGAGE, and WMC MORTGAGE LLC committed fraud pursuant to §

831.02 Fla. Stat. in that the signature of the Notice of Right to Cancel was forged.

28. Plaintiff Gregory K. Samuels, was the owner of the following described real property in

Orange County, Florida with the legal description as follows:

THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF THE NORTH 300 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 (LESS THE WEST 20 FEET AND LESS BEGINNING 300 FEET SOUTH
AND 20 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, RUN NORTH 14 FEET, SOUTH 86 EAST 235.35 FEET WEST 235

8
 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION AS
STATED IN ORDER OF TAKING FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3866, PAGE
2109) LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 29
EAST, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Address: 25 South Ortman Drive, Orlando, Florida 32805 (the "Property")

29. Under Florida law, and Federal law, a mortgage cannot be enforceable in a foreclosure

without the note upon which the mortgage may be collateralized. Plaintiff lays claim that the

Defendant lost the chain of custody upon WMC’s modification/cancellation the note.

30. A note of note in blank is enforceable in contracts or equity when both parties sign to the

agreement of the mortgage and the note. Defendants rely on the Promissory Note not signed by

both parties and therefore are committed a fraudulent act. Plaintiff contends the Promissory note

and mortgage split upon the cancellation of the note by WMC.

31. WMC did not transfer interest in the property to FV-1/Morgan Stanley and was sent to

MERS and the Mortgage was fraudulently recorded in the MERS system and thereby fraudulently

recorded in the county records and thus began a recording history based on fraud and error on the

part of the parties to the suit, the defendants.

MERS is listed as a “nominee” and is not considered the owner of the mortgage and note and therefore

had no rights to sell, dispose, encumber, the Mortgagors’ property and the title which Plaintiff is

the owner of during the MERS transfers. (explanation of MERS provided by FDIC privacy impact

service dated September 2010- MersCorp is a private corporation that owns and operates the

electronic registry known as the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), which is

designed to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans. The primary purpose of

MERS is to streamline the mortgage process by eliminating the need to prepare and record paper

assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.

9
Mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicers, and other entities, known as “MERS members”, subscribe

to MERS and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and tracking of ownership and transfers

of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appoint MERS to act as their common agent on all

mortgages they register in MERS. MERS remains the mortgagee regardless of how many times

servicing of a particular loan is traded, so long as the servicing rights are traded to another MERS

member. By listing MERS as the mortgagee in municipal documents and electronically recording

assignments, transfers and sales, MERS members avoid having to file new paperwork and pay fees

each time a mortgage is resold.)

32. WMC closed the note and returned the monies to the Plaintiff and therefore has

abandoned note and rights to property.

33. WMC forged signature of the Notice of Right to Cancel by signing Plaintiffs name

Gregory K. Samuels which has been determined by hand-writing expert in Richardson, Texas.

A security interest attaches or becomes enforceable against collateral under section 679.2031(1),

Florida Statutes, “when it becomes enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral.”

The assignment of a note attaches and becomes enforceable by the transferee against the assignor

and the debtor when (a) value has been given (b) the assignor has rights in the collateral or the

power to transfer rights in the collateral to a secured party, and (c) the assignor has either

“authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral” or the assignee

has taken possession of the note under section 679.3131, Florida Statutes. If the signature of the

parties is not present and the property is transferred, sold or otherwise disposed it is alleged by the

Plaintiff to have committed a fraud on the Plaintiff and the County in which the recording has

taken place. Plaintiff alleges fraud has been committed upon him.

34. Defendants invalid transfers that occurred after the Modification and Cancellation of the

Note and Mortgage in the chain of custody by “Assignment of Mortgage” splits the Note which
10
 was never signed by the Parties as required, invalidates all future claims after WMC fraudulently

signed note.

Defendant’s lacked standing to file the petition for foreclosure because it did not have possession of

the original note prior to filing its petition, in that;  (1) the Note and Mortgage Defendant’s held

had split because these documents did not follow the same path to FV–I due to the Modification

not signed and cancellation forged;  (2) Defendant’s lacked enforcement rights in the note because

FV–I had failed to lay the proper foundation for the endorsement in blank on the note and

therefore, the court must exclude the endorsement in blank from evidence;  and (3) The holder of

the original note WMC passed the possession without authority to do so in the cancellation and

modification not being properly signed and notarized by the Plaintiff and therefore, WMC’s

mortgages was fraudulently signed and sold in blank and assigned to “nominee” MERS and

subsequently sold to FV-1 Inc./Morgan Stanley which further split the Note and Mortgage which is

apparently not the correct Note and Mortgage by the fraudulent signature of the Modification and

Cancellation notice and thereby the Original Note and Mortgage are superior to all Notes that

followed and passed by MERS, and so the chain of custody is broken and possession of the

property would be in the Plaintiffs had the due diligence of the Defendants been performed on the

Note in blank.

35. The acts of Defendants, GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

SYSTEMS, aka MERSCORP WMC MORTGAGE, and WMC MORTGAGE LLC are believed by

the Plaintiff that the ownership by reason of performance of the Note and note in blank that

followed are invalid by the forgery committed by the Modification and Cancellation of the

Original Note. This split the Mortgage from the Note and would by reason leave the mortgage and

title in the possession of the Plaintiff. This splitting of the mortgage and note invalidates the

transfers, Plaintiff asserts.

11
 36. Plaintiff concludes that a note not signed by both parties is invalid and note bears no

weight to be collected as described in the FDCPA 1681. The note itself is the “collateral” as

defined by section 679.1021(1)(l)2., Florida Statutes, and the written assignment or sale agreement

constitutes the “security agreement” as defined by subsections 679.1021(1) (ttt) and 671.201(35),

Florida Statutes.

37. The Plaintiff contends the Defendants, GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC., MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, aka MERSCORP WMC MORTGAGE, and WMC MORTGAGE

LLC, do not possess a note signed by the Plaintiff to provide they had collateralized possession of

the title and mortgage to claim a disposition of the property and therefore sold Plaintiff property

and damaged Plaintiff. By furthering the fraud and altering instrument as shown in the “blank

note” exhibit the foreclosure final judgment, should have been dismissed, reversed, and remanded

in the first place. As shown in both Perez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 174 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2015) and Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), the

possession of a true and accurate endorsed note is essential in any foreclosure.

38. The Assignment of Mortgage was never signed and performed by WMC to transfer a

security interest in the property to FV-1 and therefore any other transfer from that point on could

not have been legally transferred as MERS continued to record.

39. GQ Holding, LLC. Accelerated and began foreclosure without standing to do so and

therefore has unclean hands to state a claim upon which relief should have been granted and within

the plain language should have be denied foreclosure and Mortgage and Title retained by Plaintiff.

Unclean Hands is claimed in the lack of performance to insure a

chain of custody of Note and Mortgage as would be discovered in a title search by which the signature

is very well seen to be forged.

40. These factual legal and genuine issues are allegations made for the basis upon which the
12
 complaint is made and by prima facie showing we do so request relief on this count.

41. Additionally, GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC once it filed the second foreclosure against the

property subject to this Complaint. On the cover sheet it did not let the Clerk of Courts know there

was a “related case” and they checked off “No” instead of “Yes”. Hereto attached as exhibit” G”.

Therfore. committing further fraud and deceitful acts.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays that Count I, for fraud be granted and the title of the property and full

possession be granted to the Plaintiff, and any and all relief deemed just for damages and injury to

the Plaintiff.

COUNT II - DUE PROCESS

(denial of right to trial by summary judgement violated right to defend invalid note)

42. Plaintiff contends that the rights of due process was violated by the Defendants, GQ

Holding, LLC, in the seeking of a summary judgement during the discovery process. US Const.

Amend. XIV, based on the summary judgement made by both parties not responding to Discovery

requests. As shown in Brotheridge v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 67 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA

2010), the discovery process is crucial in a foreclosure lawsuit and similar suits have been brought

to the higher courts accordingly.

43. The claim for summary judgement was inappropriate and therefore denied and prejudiced.

Plaintiff was deprived the opportunity to defend the action for foreclosure and the ability to present

evidence by granting when other motions were more appropriate in the seeking of facts and issues

of the truth in this case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30-37 state the procedures which are available.

44. Plaintiff contends Defendant, GQ Holding, Inc. did not have standing to pursue its claim

without establishing enforcement rights in the promissory note as of the date of the filing, FV–I's

Note and Mortgage was unenforceable as the forged documents deny them rightful possession, and

13
therefore, FV–I's mortgage lost its superior priority to transfer and subsequently end up in the

possession of GQ Holding, Inc. which filed summary judgement. Summary judgment is

appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins.

Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the

initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the

record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts. Rodgers v. Banks,

344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this burden by presenting

affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving party's claim or by demonstrating

an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. In deciding a motion for

summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts and inferences in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d

265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of

witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249

(1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of

fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the

nonmoving party's position will be insufficient to survive summary judgment; rather, there must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at

595.

45. Florida statutes provide the specific guidelines for the recording of the mortgage and its

assignments. It is critical for a lender to comply with the Florida statutes if they want to maintain

the priority of their lien. See Fla. Stat. §§ 695.01, 695.25, 695.26, 701.02 (2008). The fundamental

inquiry is notice. As such, recording is important to the extent it imparts constructive notice.

Where a court finds that there is a renewal, or the extension of the maturity of a loan, the

14
 transaction will not affect the priority. Where a court finds that an original mortgage was

extinguished, the modified mortgage could lose priority to future liens. Plaintiff contends and

complains the defendants have no standing based in law to file for foreclosure and thereby

acquiring a summary judgment during Discovery and infringed on the Plaintiff’s right to due

process of the law as afford by the XIV amendment of the Constitution.

COUNT III - conversion

(1) the plaintiff owns or has the right to possess the personal property at issue; (2) the tortfeasor

intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's property; (3) the tortfeasor deprived the plaintiff of

possession or use of the property at issue; and (4) the interference caused damages to the

plaintiff.These factual legal and genuine issues are allegations made for the basis upon which

the complaint is made and by prima facie showing we do so request relief on this count.

COUNT IIII –Violation of truth and lending

Count 4 – Wrongful Foreclosure

A legal duty was owed to the plaintiff/ debtor by all the defendants, in each of them. The
foreclosing lender, by instituting the foreclosure proceeding and colluding with the other
defendants, And each of them,
breached that duty owed to plaintiff. They said breach called Francis damages and the
fact that he lost ownership of the real property subject to this sued and separate other
injuries financial and otherwise in an amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays that count II for the violation of his due process right by summary

judgement in which the property was wrongfully taken and asks for the amount of

$349,000.00 in compensatory damages, and $200,000.00 in punitive damages, any and all other relief

for damages as this court deems just.

15
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays this honorable court grant relief for attorney fees, legal fees and costs

of investigation and any and all other relief this court deems just.

The Plaintiff demands Jury trial.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to all listed on the
service list.
Dated November 19, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/
Gregory K. Samuels
806 West Lake Mann Drive Orlando, Florida 32805
(407) 578-5570

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26