IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-OPT4, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT4 Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO.: 43-2007-CA-000311-CA

NICOLE WEST and TIMOTHY WEST, et al. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/Third Party Plaintiffs and Non-Party Plaintiffs v. H & R Block, Inc., a foreign corporation, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, plc, an alien corporation, Greenwich Capital Holdings n/k/a RBS Holdings USA, Inc. a foreign corporation Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc., n/k/a RBS Acceptance, Inc., a foreign corporation, Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., n/k/a RBS Securities Inc., a foreign corporation, Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc. n/k/a RBS Financial Products, Inc., a foreign corporation, Financial Asset Securities Corporation, a foreign corporation, Allied Home Mortgage Corporation, a foreign corporation, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Default Solutions, a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Information Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation, Lender Processing Services, Incorporated, a foreign corporation,
1

Lender Processing Services Default Solutions, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, DOCX a dissolved foreign corporation, Cindi Ellis, Korell Harp, Linda Green, Amelia Chute, Jessica Ohde, Pat Kingston Third Party Defendants, And Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A. a Florida corporation, Ablitt Scofield, a foreign corporation, Non-Party Defendants. /

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COUNTERCLAIMS, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS AND NON-PARTY CLAIMS NICOLE WEST and TIMOTHY WEST1, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, submit their Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, Third Party Claims and Non-Party Claims and state as follows in support: The Wests generally denies each and every allegation in the Amended Complaint that requires a response except those items specifically admitted herein. The Wests responds to each allegation of the Complaint as follows, with numbered paragraphs corresponding to those of the complaint. 1. The Wests neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 1, as the complaint speaks for itself and its characterization is a matter of law and not fact. 2. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 2, and demand strict proof thereof.

Hereafter Wests.
2

3. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 3 and demand strict proof thereof. 4. Admitted that Homeowners now owns the property. Denied as to all other allegations. 5. The Wests deny the allegations in paragraph 5 and demand strict proof thereof. 6. The Wests deny the Plaintiff has any right to declare the full amount due under said Note and Mortgage, calls for a legal conclusion. 7. The Wests deny Plaintiff has any right to declare any amount due and owing against defendants and demand strict proof thereof. 8. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 8, as they simply have no information that would confirm those allegations. 9. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 9. Among other failed conditions, Plaintiff has failed to provide notices and pre-foreclosure counseling as required prior to commencing this foreclosure action. Plaintiff also failed to follow loss mitigation guidelines of insurers and investors and failed to follow their own securitization affirmative attestations regarding loss mitigation. 10. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 10.

11. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 11, as Plaintiff has now claimed to have filed the original document with the court. The Wests neither admits nor denies that the document in authentic and demands strict proof thereof. 12. The Wests deny the allegations of paragraph 12 and demand strict proof thereof. 13. The Wests admit that Plaintiff claims to have lost the note and Plaintiff has no information as to the whereabouts of the note or how it was lost. The Wests deny that Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note. 14. The Wests deny the allegations in paragraph 14. The Wests do have an interest in contesting reestablishment of the lost Note.
3

15. The Wests deny the statement in paragraph 15 of the complaint and demand strict proof thereof. 16. The Wests neither admit or deny that the loss of possession is not the result of a transfer or lawful seizure and demand strict proof thereof. The Wests admit that Plaintiff claims they cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed and its whereabouts cannot be determined or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or persons that cannot be found. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Failure of Condition(s) Precedent: Although Plaintiff claims that all conditions precedent have been met or occurred, Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts to support such an assertion. The reason for this is simplenone of the conditions precedents have occurred prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiff declares in a conclusory fashion that collection of the note has been accelerated. Notably, Plaintiff drafts that conclusion of fact in the passive voice, failing to even identify who accelerated payment of the note. Plaintiff has not attached the proof of its alleged compliance with the conditions precedent in support of its conclusory allegations that this notice was provided. The reason plaintiff has not attached such a notice is simplyno such notice complying with 24 C.F.R. 203.604 and paragraph 21 of the alleged mortgage plaintiff relies upon to bring this action was ever sent to the Wests. Plaintiff is required by HUD regulations to ensure that all of the servicing requirements of 24 C.F.R. Part 203(C) have been met before initiating foreclosure. 24 C.F.R.203.606. According to the Federal regulations and terms of the subject note and mortgage, they are required to adapt effective collection techniques designed to meet defendants individual differences and take account of their peculiar circumstances to minimize the default in their mortgage payments as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.600. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that it satisfied any of the conditions precedent alleged above. Rather, Plaintiffs allegations are devoid of any allegation that it made any reasonable efforts as required by federal regulations and the terms of the note and mortgage to arrange a face to face meeting with defendants before three full monthly installments were unpaid to discuss their circumstances and possible foreclosure avoidance. 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Plaintiff is required under federal law to adapt its collection and loan servicing practices to a homeowners individual circumstances and to re-evaluate these techniques each month after default. The Wests have the right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by Federal and state laws, regulations,
4

orders and guidelines that have been denied to them by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further denied defendants access to a repayment plan or special forbearance in the form of a written agreement that would reduce or suspend their monthly mortgage payments for a specific period to allow them time to recover from the financial hardship they were suffering through no fault of their own. Such a plan can involve changing one or more terms of the subject mortgage in order to help defendants bring the claimed default current, thereby preventing foreclosure. Because plaintiff should have complied with these conditions precedent, plaintiffs foreclosure case against defendants is illegal. Consequently, plaintiff has improperly subjected defendants to this foreclosure action, thereby forcing them to defend the same while charging unnecessary court costs, other related fees, and attorney fees. Nicole Wests credit is slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitute the irreparable harm supporting the need for injunctive relief. Unconscionable, Unclean hands and Against Public Policy: The loan is unconscionable, violates federal and State public policy, and is unenforceable. Specifically, they withheld material information regarding defendants liability under the loan which, if fully known to the Wests would have resulted in no loan. Further, the terms were unconscionable as plaintiff knew or should have known that defendants would not be able to afford the loan once the payments reached a certain amount. Plaintiffs knew or should have known this fact based upon plaintiffs superior knowledge and ability to calculate and determine whether a borrower is qualified for a loan based on the borrowers assets, liabilities, income, loan to value ratio, and loan to income ratio. Plaintiff did not disclose this fact to defendants either negligently or intentionally, as alleged above. More evidence that the loan was unconscionable, against public policy, and a contract of adhesion, rendering it void ab initio is paragraph 13 of the mortgage wherein its states that Lender may require that [borrower] make immediate payment in full of all Sums Secured by this Security Instrument [i]f a change in applicable law would make any provision of the Secured Notes or this Security Instrument unenforceable. This provision begs the question: how can plaintiff hold defendants liable if the agreement is rendered void by law. The terms of the purported Note and Mortgage contain the hallmark characteristics that the loan was and is unconscionable and a contract of adhesion, void ab initio. The result was a predatory loan imposed on unsophisticated individuals duped into an abyss of financial ruin. To the extent plaintiff, and or its predecessors in ownership to the mortgage loan attempted to sell and/or transfer the subject mortgage loan into the vehicle of an investment trust or other mortgage backed security, it did so without the consent or knowledge of the defendants. In doing so, plaintiff and/or its predecessors
5

impaired defendants title to the subject property by generating a cloud upon defendants title by obfuscating clear ownership of the debt and its accompanying lien. In essence, plaintiff and/or its predecessors have so obscured the ownership of the promissory note from the lien of the mortgage that it has hindered the Wests ability to verify ownership and holdership of the core debt obligation, the note. This has severely hindered their ability to deal fairly and reasonably with their property, whether it is to refinance, sell it, or pay off the alleged obligations upon it, and therefore, renders the lien of the mortgage unconscionable. Further, the mortgage constituting the subject matter of this action is unconscionable in material part as it allows for division of a single legal contract into indefinite multiple pieces, and a separation of the note from the mortgage in violation of common law and public policy. Paragraph 19 of the mortgage grants the unilateral right to the owner and holder of the note to sell the note or a partial interest in the note (together with the Security Instrument) to any number of people or undisclosed entities without the consent or knowledge of the debtor. Specifically, when the note interest is divided and dispersed among numerous investors (known thereafter as note Holders and/or Certificate Owners pursuant to the terms of the Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement) and the mortgage (Security Instrument) is assigned to a separate party as evidenced by the recorded mortgage thereafter the mortgagee the note and mortgage lack mutuality of obligation and/or remedy. The defendants are afforded no compensating means of ascertaining, verifying or otherwise, with certainty, determining the ownership of the note through identification of the mortgagee on the recorded mortgage. As the mortgage follows the note, this unreasonably and inequitably impairs the Wests ability to deal in their property or mitigate their loss. Plaintiff lacks standing: Plaintiff is not the true owner of the claim sued upon, is not the real party in interest and is not shown to be authorized to bring this foreclosure action. There has not been proper endorsements, negotiation nor lawful assignment of the Note/Mortgage in question from the unknown lender to any purported holder. There is no identification of who or what Option One Mortgage Corporation is, and whether in 2008 (when the first purported Assignment was made) it even lawfully existed. Two additional unlawful Assignments of Mortgage have also been recorded, as well as the Lis Pendens. The three attempts to assign the Mortgage and rights to payments therein to Plaintiff via the AOMs were frauds on the court and therefore never transferred the mortgage and the mortgage still remains in the legal name of Option One Mortgage Corporation Accordingly, Plaintiff is responsible for the actions of its agent(s).
6

Furthermore, even if the Assignment were transferred and/or issued to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not possess the note upon Assignment before filing this action. Without possession prior to filing this action, the Plaintiff cannot be a holder. Because the Plaintiff was not a holder, the Plaintiff did not have standing to sue on the instrument, when this action was filed, the Promissory note and the incidental Mortgage securing it. Even though Plaintiff also has not pleaded fact for relief for an equitable assignment either. Thus, without ownership of the Mortgage, this Plaintiff does not have the right to pursue the equitable remedy of foreclosure. The Wests assert that the parties to the mortgage, by specific agreement, purposely separated the holding of the mortgage from the note and that Plaintiffs failure to join title to both the note and the mortgage by means of a legal and lawful assignment of mortgage prior to commencement of this suit is a failure of standing. OOMC remains the actual holder of the mortgage lien and has not yet executed and delivered an assignment at law. Specifically, equitable assignment is not applicable or available in this instance as Equity follows the law and does step before it. There can be no equitable assignment until an effort has been made by claimant to take the simple legal step of a proper assignment at law. Corollary to this is that equity should not be invoked to give a short cut to a litigant who has failed to follow the first rule of equity: Equity is for the vigilant. Void ab Initio as against public policy: All parties claiming rights to enforce, ownership rights, or some right stemming from cash flow of the securities, knew the truth about the predatory nature of the loan as evidenced by the loan tape audit, the concealment of true and complete terms of the loan from the borrower loan file shows lack of disclosures-timing of disclosures, the intentional interference with the broker-borrower relationship( YSP payment on HUD-1), discrimination of a female protected class member, again evidence by the loan tape audit, failure to accept loan payment as evidenced by the servicing records, failure to engage in loss mitigation-loan workouts as evidenced by monthly investor reports, and more. The Wests came to the Allied broker and expected the best loan product for which they qualified. The Wests were unaware that the Allied broker has rate sheets from various lenders and is seeking the best commission regardless of the promise to them. The lenders are offering a YSP / yield spread premium for such detrimental loan terms as type of adjustable rate loan, margin + index based adjustments, prepayment penalties assessed. The lender wants these terms so it can prosper in selling the market into securitization which investors will pay more for these attributes. The borrower is supposed to get full disclosure of all material loan terms within 3 days of making loan application under RESPA. The originators collude to ensure the borrower is
7

not given the actual loan terms in time to shop for a more suitable loan and find out they actually qualified for a better loan. They conspire to deceive the borrower and conceal material terms until the closing at which time the borrower is asked to sign here and there without time to review what they just signed. The second layer of protection is the 3 day right of rescission under TILA. But at closing the settlement provider, acting under a closing protection letter to act as agent of the lender, assists in the collusion by not giving the borrower a copy of the signed set of documents thereby making it impossible to review and potentially exercise that right. The borrower would have exercised that right within the 3 days. The full extent of the fraud is not revealed until years later when a foreclosure action is filed and the borrower seeks discovery, a loan audit and a securitization trust audit. In Equity, these parties are estopped by their conduct. The borrower relied upon the implied representation that the loan was the best loan they were qualified for, that the parties acted in good faith, that the individual parties were performing their duties in compliance with all state and federal laws. The house was not worth the appraised value, the loan was not what the borrower bargained for, and the parties extracted fees and interest they were not entitled to. In this case the parties knew the borrowers financial condition and knew they could not perform under the contract. The predatory lending practices that were present in the subject loan solicitation and origination yielded a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law because it is against public policy for the Courts to enforce illegal contracts. Failure to Mitigate/Failure of good faith and fair dealing: Plaintiff agreed to a forbearance agreement, but when the Wests attempted to perform on that contract Plaintiff, or its agents, rejected the payment. They cant later seek to collect a debt for which it rejected payment. That change was unfair the Wests relief upon the representation, provided consideration and suffered damages as a result of the Plaintiffs breach all in bad faith. The Plaintiffs or its agents failure to forebear/modify also caused it to failed to mitigate its alleged damages. Promissory Estoppel- Detrimental Reliance: In this case, the borrower relied on several promises both inherent in contracts in general and specific to the transaction. Due to breaches of these promises the borrowers have suffered loss and have been forced to fend off attacks to take their home. The facts underlying
8

this Affirmative Defense are essentially identical to the facts underlying the prior Affirmative Defense. 1. The loan was the best loan the borrower qualified for. 2. The loan was a whole loan and would not be broken up and sold in pieces to the detriment of the borrower. 3. The loan had characteristics that were safe and sustainable. 4. The loan was not predatory. 5. The loan was not discriminatory. 6. The loan was based on the credit profile presented. 7. The loan was negotiated in good faith by the broker. 8. The property had the value for which the lender lent money against. 9. The appraisal was an arms length transaction and done with no predetermined amount given to the appraiser to meet. 10. The contract including servicing of the loan would be executed under contract laws of good faith and fair dealing. 11. The lender of the funds actually wanted the borrower to perform on the contract and would not do anything to interfere with that by rejecting payments. 12. The loan would not be used to create an incentive through various credit enhancements to force a failure or foreclosure so that those parties could benefit from that failure.

Judicial estoppel: The Plaintiff is prohibits from "blowing hot and cold," by the doctrine of judicial estoppels which prohibits a litigant from taking one position that is accepted by one court and advocating a completely contrary position in another court, to try to gain advantage. The doctrine of judicial estoppels is employed by the Court, in equity, to protect the integrity of the judicial system. Equitable estoppel: Plaintiff is equitably estopped from adopting a position in court that contradicts its prior legal theory absent amended pleadings. Plaintiff initially claimed that the AOMs provided standing in this case because the original promissory note is payable to OOMC not Plaintiff. Equitable estoppel/Estoppel in Pais: Plaintiff is precluded, both at law and in equity, from denying, or asserting the contrary of, any material fact which, by words or conduct, affirmative or negative, intentionally or through culpable negligence, it has induced another, who was excusably ignorant of the true facts
9

and who had a right to rely upon such words or conduct, to believe and act upon them thereby, as a consequence reasonably to be anticipated, changing its position in such a way that the other party would suffer injury if such denial or contrary assertion was allowed.
The RBS entities, Maiden Lane II LLC, AIG and Federal National Mortgage

Association, Fannie Mae CDO 2007-95 have all remained silent though they hold a majority stake in the outcome of this case; many tranches have already been reduced to zero through complete payouts. All investors holding voting rights will all be equitably estopped by their failure to come forward as the true parties in interest. The doctrine of equitable estoppel/estoppels in pais prevents a party from asserting something when they had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier, and their silence put the opposing party at a disadvantage due to their reliance on the silence. Representation of fact -Estoppel by representation of fact : Where one person (the representor) has made a representation of fact to another person (the representee) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto. A representation can be made by words or conduct. Although the representation must be clear and unambiguous, a representation can be inferred from silence where there is a duty to speak or from negligence where a duty of care has arisen. In this case the Plaintiff has represented to this Court that it is the owner and holder of the subject note and mortgage. Plaintiff is not the owner of the beneficial interest in the note and mortgage because the procedure to transfer the interest to the Plaintiff was not followed therefore the trust does not have standing to sue the Wests. Collateral Estoppel: Collateral estoppel cases raise constitutional due process problems, particularly when it is applied to a party that did not participate in the original suit. Due process mandates that collateral estoppel not be applied to a party that has not actually litigated the issue in dispute, unless that party is in legal privity to a party that did actually litigate it. These parties are in legal privity but
10

must produce all those contracts, both public and private, swaps and other non public contracts. The Plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from proceeding with the relitigation of issues of fact that have already been actually litigated. The rule is also intended to protect defendants from the inequity of having to defend the same issue repeatedly. Florida is a deficiency judgment state, and contracts between insurers and the Plaintiffs investors provide for an assignment of the right to pursue the borrower to be assigned to the insurer, and/or the right for various parties, the insurer, master servicer, net interest margin securities, to purchase the loan from the securitization trust. Therefore without joinder of these parties to this foreclosure action, the borrowers may have to litigate the foreclosure issue and the deficiency issue against another party in another lawsuit. The act of Plaintiffs investors a/k/a/ the certificate owners, insurers, and other unknown counterparties to hide in the background while the borrower attempts to defend or assert affirmative claims, is to create a moving target upon which the borrower may have to defend over and over again against new parties as they assert one owner, one set of assignments, then produce a Note and claim it to be bearer paper, or pass the hot potato loan around through repurchases, trades, assignments, or by other means. If the owner of the beneficial interest remains a moving target, most likely a foreclosure will occur before a borrower can figure it all out. Therefore full disclosure of all assignments, transfers, consideration paid, and physical custody of loan documents is required. For this case it is also imperative to discover who was actually the proper party at the time the case was filed. Finally the law prohibits a double recovery of damages for one claim; without knowing who the identity of the owner of the interest it would be impossible to prevent double recovery. COUNTERCLAIMS, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS AND NON-PARTY CLAIMS Nicole West and Tim West file these Counterclaims against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company2 as Indenture Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT43 and Third Party claims against H & R Block, Inc., a foreign corporation, Royal Bank of Scotland Group4, plc, an alien corporation, Greenwich Capital Holdings n/k/a RBS Holdings USA, Inc5. a foreign corporation, Greenwich
2 3

Hereafter DBNTC Hereafter SVHE 2005-OPT4 4 Hereafter RBS Group 5 Hereafter RBSH
11

Capital Acceptance, Inc., n/k/a RBS Acceptance, Inc6., a foreign corporation, Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., n/k/a RBS Securities Inc.7, a foreign corporation, Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc. n/k/a RBS Financial Products, Inc8., a foreign corporation, Financial Asset Securities Corporation9, a foreign corporation, Allied Home Mortgage Corporation10, a foreign corporation, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. 11, a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 12., a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Default Solutions13, a foreign corporation, Fidelity National Information Systems, Inc. 14, a foreign corporation, Lender Processing Services, Inc.15, a foreign corporation, Lender Processing Services Default Solutions, Inc. 16, a foreign corporation, DOCX17 a dissolved foreign corporation, Cindi Ellis18, Korell Harp19, Linda Green20, Amelia Chute21, Jessica Ohde22, Pat Kingston23, and Non-Party claims against Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A24. a Florida corporation, Ablitt Scofield25, a foreign corporation, a foreign corporation. In support, the Wests allege as follows. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND THE PARTIES

6 7

Hereafter RBSA Hereafter RBSS 8 Hereafter RBSFP 9 Hereafter FASCO 10 Hereafter ALLIED 11 Hereafter AHMSI 12 Hereafter FNF 13 Hereafter FNDS 14 Hereafter FIS 15 Hereafter LPS 16 Hereafter LPSDS 17 Hereafter DOCX 18 Hereafter ELLIS 19 Hereafter HARP 20 Hereafter GREEN 21 Hereafter CHUTE 22 Hereafter OHDE 23 Hereafter Kingston 24 Hereafter BEK 25 Hereafter AS
12

1. The following allegations of wrongdoing occurred in Florida and any contract at issue in this case was entered and /or partially performed in the state of Florida. 2. These claims meet and/or exceed this Courts jurisdiction of $15,000.00.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over these Counterclaims, Third Party Claims and Non-Party Claims because they arise out of the mortgage loan transaction and/or collection of same which is the subject of plaintiffs amended complaint filed in this case. 4. H & R Block, Inc26. is a foreign corporation that was the parent company of subprime loan originator OOMC until it sold OOMCs servicing platform to nonparty AH Mortgage Acquisition Co.27, in April, 2008. Upon the sale OOMC changed its name to Sand Canyon Corporation, a California corporation on June 4, 2008. Sand Canyon is the name that H & R Block, Inc. has registered in Florida as the successor to OOMC. 5. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, RBS Holdings USA, Inc. (f/k/a Greenwich Capital Holdings, Inc.), RBS Securities, Inc. (f/k/a Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.), RBS Acceptance, Inc. (f/k/a Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc.), Financial Asset Securities Corporation28 are foreign corporations doing business in Florida. 6. At all times material hereto The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, RBS Holdings USA, Inc., RBS Securities, Inc. (f/k/a Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.), RBS Acceptance, Inc. (f/k/a Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc.), Financial Asset Securities Corporation all were instrumentalities of each other and they engaged in improper conduct by failing to: 7. At all times material hereto RBS Group, RBSH, RBSS, RBSA and FASCO29 all were instrumentalities of each other and they engaged in improper conduct by failing to:

26 27

Hereafter collectively originators Hereafter American Home. 28 Hereafter Securitizers. 29 Collectively hereafter Securitizers.
13

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Observe corporate formalities; By commingling funds; By commingling assets; By failing to adequately capitalize; By using either corporate form to avoid liability for the other; By actively conspiring to defraud the Wests of their homestead real property in violation of their Constitutional Rights.

8. ALLIED is a foreign corporation registered to do business in this state. ALLIED was the mortgage broker that originated the subject loan. 9. AHMSI is a foreign corporation registered to do business in this state. AHMSI is and/or was a servicer of the subject loan. AHMSI is American Homes d/b/a since acquiring OOMCs servicing portfolio. AHMSI became one of the largest servicers in the United States by substantially expanding through refinance of the Option One servicing portfolio. AHMSI did not refinance the loans which had been previously pledged to securitizations, and only became the successor servicer of those loans including the loan at issue in this case. 10. Defendant Fidelity National Financial Inc30. Is a Delaware corporation registered to transact business in Florida. In addition to the divisions set forth below FNF supplies a range of services and products used by mortgage servicers including title insurance, Broker Price Opinions, property inspections, property preservation services and, most importantly, computerized mortgages servicing and accounting systems for over 50% of the mortgage loans in the United States, including the Plaintiffs mortgage. 11. Defendant Fidelity National Default Solutions31 is a division and/or wholly owned subsidiary of FNF having an office and principal place of business at 15661 Red Hill Ave., Suite 201, Santa Ana, California and operating an office for Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Services at 1270 Northland Dr., Suite 200, Mendota Heights, Minnesota which supplies record-keeping and litigation support for actions brought to foreclose mortgage in Florida including the preparation and verification of multitudinous affidavits and other sworn documents which are filed with various court clerks in Florida.

30
31

Hereafter FNF Hereafter FNDS

14

12. Defendant, Lender Processing Services, Inc.32 is a Delaware corporation registered in this State since March 6, 2009 according to the Florida Secretary of State Division of Corporations filing F09000000934. LPS principal place of business is located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. LPS is in the business of providing information technology and services to the financial industry. 13. LPS was acquired by FNF in 2003 and was subsequently named Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.33 In 2008 LPS was spun off from FIS as an independent publicly traded corporation. Its corporate headquarters are in Duval County, Florida. 14. LPSDS is a foreign corporation that has sufficient contacts to this state to support personal jurisdiction and/or does business through its alter ego LPS in this state. 15. DOCX is a dissolved foreign limited liability company and is/was a wholly owned subsidiary of LPS and/or LPSDS at all times material hereto. 16. Ellis, Harp, Green, Chute, Ohde and Kingston34 are/were, at all times material hereto, employed by Plaintiff and/or FNF and/or FNDS and/or LPS and/or LPDS and/or DOCX and produce thousands of documents for filing in state and federal litigation. ROBOSIGNORS produced boiler plate documents used in the prosecution of foreclosure of the Wests home and they signed sworn documents created for, and filed in, this case. 17. At all times material hereto FNF and/or FNDS and/or FIS and/or LPS and/or LPSDS and/or DOCX35 were instrumentalities of each other and they engaged in improper conduct by failing to:

a. b. c. d. e.
32 33

Observe corporate formalities; By commingling funds; By commingling assets; By failing to adequately capitalize; By using either corporate form to avoid liability for the other;

Hereafter LPS Hereafter FIS 34 Hereafter collectively ROBOSIGNORS 35 Hereafter Collectively the LPS entities.
15

f. By actively conspiring to defraud the Wests of their homestead real property in violation of their Constitutional Rights. 18. The SVHE 2005-OPT4 securitizers ordered from conduit lender OOMC, and OOMC ordered from broker Allied the type of loans necessary to fulfill the proper mix to create this trust full of loans with predatory terms such as excess interest, prepayment penalties and short reset ARMS. The purpose of this is unjust enrichment for the securitization creators through either holding the investment tranches which are the direct beneficiary of the excess interest, prepayment penalties and ARM adjustments or selling those tranches or excess compensation. OOMC had a broker origination agreement with Allied Home Mortgage and therefore Allied acted as agent of OOMC. OOMC corrupted the fiduciary of the broker to the borrower by paying in kickback incentives to ALLIED. OOMC had a conduit lender agreement and warehouse line of credit from Greenwich to originate loans for its securitizations. Therefore, OOMC was acting as agent of Greenwich. 19. BEK is a Florida corporation doing business in this state primarily engaged in the provision of legal services, specifically debt collection, for banks, servicers, financial institutions and other creditors at all times material hereto. BEK through its agents filed and/or prosecuted this foreclosure claim against the Wests. 20. AS is a foreign corporation doing business in this state primarily engaged in the provision of legal services, specifically debt collection, for banks, servicers, financial institutions and other creditors at all times material hereto. AS through its agents prosecuted this foreclosure claim against the Wests. 21. BEK are experienced foreclosure/ debt collection attorneys and knew or should have known that its complaint was fatally defective ab initio. AS are also experienced foreclosure/ debt collection attorneys have carried on the prosecution of this case without curing the defects of the Amended Complaint and based upon false and/or forged and/or altered documents that were intended to retroactively establish Plaintiffs standing in this case. BEK and AS conduct surpasses mere misconduct sanctionable under the rules of professional conduct. Rather, given their experience and expertise in this area of law, such conduct amounts to nothing less than intentional (or at the least, reckless, willful and wanton) misrepresentation before the court and upon the Wests. 22. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, Plaintiff, and/or originators and/or AHMSI hired BEK and/or AS as attorneys and express agents and authorized BEK and AS to pursue the Wests to collect funds allegedly owed
16

to Plaintiff under the subject alleged debt. They further authorized BEK to file suit against the Wests to collect the purported debt. 23. At all times relevant herein, the actions of BEK and AS were within the scope of BEK and ASs employ with Plaintiff and/or originators and/or AHMSI. These entities independently or jointly have ratified all conduct of BEK and AS relating to their collection efforts as to the Wests including all misconduct occurring before, as to BEK, and after, as to BEK and AS, filing this suit. 24. As a direct result of the actions described herein, the Wests have been damaged as their credit has been irreparably harmed and they have lost valuable time with their minor children defending their family home against the wrongful actions more particularly described below. Such harm to their credit has prevented them from obtaining necessary funding for their family including, but not limited, to education, transportation, food, clothing, and other necessities for the family. Further, the Wests have not been able to acquire other housing due to the wrongful foreclosure action. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 25. The Plaintiff lacked standing to bring this suit and cannot cure the subject matter jurisdiction defect created by its lack of standing at the inception of this lawsuit filed on March 14, 2007. The allegations contained in Plaintiffs complaint and the evidence presented by Plaintiff has not, and cannot, establish that Plaintiff is the holder of the note at issue or possesses the legal capacity to maintain this suit. 26. Plaintiffs complaint in this case does not cure the defect of lack of standing, and any documents purporting to support standing are likely forged documents designed to commit fraud upon the court and the Wests. Specifically, the assignments of mortgage36 filed with the court were likely fraudulently created to support plaintiffs foreclosure action, as the individuals who purportedly executed the assignment have been known to execute fraudulent documents without proper agency authority and/or without knowledge of the veracity and contents of documents that the Robosignors executed in this case. 27. Plaintiff has not, and cannot, allege the essential facts establishing the transfer of the promissory note to establish its alleged holder status as the real party
36

Hereafter AOM
17

in interest with respect to the collection of the alleged debt from the Wests. Such key facts missing from the complaint and evidence before the court includes, but is not limited to, when the transfer of possession occurred, if it occurred at all, where it occurred, who or which entity possessed the note before the transfer, who received the note, consideration, and who or which entity possessed the note at the time this foreclosure action was commenced. Specifically, Plaintiffs own conduct before this Court in this case, has created a mixed question of fact and law as to the identity of the owner of the beneficial interest in the subject loan in this case. 28. The specific terms of the alleged assignment of the mortgage from OOMC to Plaintiff, has not been set forth within the complaint nor was an AOM by and between OOMC and Plaintiff attached to the complaint or recorded in the Martin County official records prior to inception of this case. Moreover, the note and the mortgage, if claimed to be held by Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4, would have required a chain of assignments from ALLIED the mortgage broker to originator OOMC to Financial Asset Securities Corporation, the Depositor, then finally to Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4. That chain would have to have been complete by the closing date of the Trust, November 1, 2005 pursuant to the documents creating the trust. 29. Plaintiff filed three suspect AOMs in support of its claim of owner and holder of the beneficial interest in the subject loan. The first AOM recorded in Martin County Public Records as Instrument number 2113989 purports to assign the mortgage from AHMSI as-successor-in-interest to OOMC to Plaintiff. According to the face of the instrument, the mortgage was assigned from AHMSI to Plaintiff effective on March 12, 2007, but the assignment was executed on October 17, 2008. This assignment instrument was signed by Linda Green as Vice President of AHMSI, Jessica Ohde as Assistant Vice President and witnessed by Korell Harp, and Christina Huang. This AOM was created by DOCX. 30. The second AOM, recorded in the Martin County Public Records as instrument number 2125751, purports to assign the mortgage from OOMC directly to Plaintiff. According to the face of this instrument, the mortgage is assigned from OOMC to Plaintiff with no mention of AHMSI. Once again, the AOM effective date is March 12, 2007, but the execution date is January 19, 2009. This AOM was signed by Korell Harp as Vice President of OOMC, Pat Kingston as Assistant Secretary, witnessed by Cheryl Thomas and Christina Huang. This AOM was also created by DOCX.

18

31. The third AOM that was recorded in Martin County Public Records as instrument number 2127039, and also filed with the court, purports to re-affirm that OOMC assigned the Mortgage to Plaintiff. This instrument on its face assigns the mortgage from OOMC to Plaintiff and was made effective March 12, 2007 but executed on January 14, 2009. Note the date on this instrument was crossed out from 2008 and the number 9 was hand written in. This AOM was purportedly signed by officers of OOMC even though that company ceased operations in June, 2008. 32. The Lis Pendens in this matter was filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2007. All three AOMs were signed and notarized and recorded well after the Lis Pendens was filed, although there are attempts on the AOMs to make them have retroactive. From the dates the AOMs were signed, notarized and recorded, it is clear that Plaintiff had not acquired the beneficial interest in the Wests alleged loan at the time the action was filed and thus has no standing to bring this action to foreclose. 33. The complaint is entirely devoid of any indication that Plaintiff lawfully held the note at any time. Indeed, the only lender identified is OOMC, and the only documents filed in this case are fraudulent post filing AOMs. No allegations or evidence attached to the complaint proves that OOMC transferred possession of the note to Plaintiff. Nor is there any allegation of fact describing a transfer of possession of the note from OOMC to plaintiff. 34. On information and belief, the Plaintiff real estate investment trust was closed well before the date the mortgage was assigned to the trustee and the trust documents forbid taking assignment of subsequent or delinquent mortgages. Based on information and belief and the requirements of the Plaintiff trust, the AOM and transfer of the note to Plaintiff must have been completed before the trust was finalized. The AOMs filed with the court however, were effective and executed years after the trust closed. Therefore, according to SEC documents, the subject loan should not have been included in the trust res and the Plaintiff therefore lacks capacity to bring suit, in addition to the reasons explained above. 35. The assignments of mortgage to Plaintiff are suspect particularly because they were created by DOCX. Notably, the ROBOSIGNORS in this case are notorious for their prolific document creation and/or execution as employees and/or agents of the originators and/or securitizers and/or LPS entities and/or BEK. They have executed numerous documents, such as the AOMs in this case, where they lacked an agency relationship with the assignor and/or the authority to execute the AOMs. They created and/or were responsible for the creation of documents
19

such as the AOMS in this case without authority, merely to provide documents to attorneys attempting to foreclose on homes. Without a valid AOM or a negotiable promissory note or the right to enforce a lost promissory note there is no doubt that plaintiff does not have any right under the mortgage prosecute this case. 36. An integral part of securitization includes provisions for margin calls; rerefinance obligations, indemnifications and other remedies against the originator for loans which were defectively included in the securitization process which resulted in the plaintiff-trust. In this case there is no evidence that any rehypothecation has occurred. However, margin calls and other offsets for defaults of the loans and/or security may have been paid. Notwithstanding, the allegations contained in plaintiffs 2008 proof of claim against AHMSI raise multiple issues of fact which would preclude plaintiffs requested relief in this case. See In re: American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., 07-11049 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct. Del.). 37. In addition, the most senior CUSIP (83611MJF6) class I-A1 is found in Fannie Mae 2007-95 Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO). On September 2, 2011 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as Fannie Maes conservator sued the SECURITIZERS and various officers of those corporations regarding SVHE 2005-OPT4 as well as other trusts. Paragraphs 77-79 of this complaint contain specific allegations related to SVHE 2005-OPT437. 38. Although Plaintiff claims that all conditions precedent have been met or occurred, Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts to support such an assertion. The reason for this is simplenone of the conditions precedents have occurred prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiff declares in a conclusory fashion that collection of the note has been accelerated. Notably, Plaintiff drafts that conclusion of fact in the passive voice, failing to even identify who accelerated payment of the note. Plaintiff has not attached the proof of its alleged compliance with the conditions precedent in support of its conclusory allegations that this notice was provided. The reason plaintiff has not attached such a notice is simplyno such notice complying with 24 C.F.R. 203.604 and paragraph 21 of the alleged mortgage plaintiff relies upon to bring this action was ever sent to the Wests.

37

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/22598/FHFA%20v%20Royal%20Bank%20of%20 Scotland.pdf; accessed of 11/11/11. The Wests are also filing a Request for Judicial Notice of this document.
20

39. The originators and/or Plaintiff and/or AHMSI are required by HUD regulations to ensure that all of the servicing requirements of 24 C.F.R. Part 203(C) have been met before initiating foreclosure. 24 C.F.R.203.606. According to the Federal regulations and terms of the subject note and mortgage, they are required to adapt effective collection techniques designed to meet defendants individual differences and take account of their peculiar circumstances to minimize the default in their mortgage payments as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.600. 40. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that it satisfied any of the conditions precedent alleged above. Rather, Plaintiffs allegations are devoid of any allegation that it made any reasonable efforts as required by federal regulations and the terms of the note and mortgage to arrange a face to face meeting with defendants before three full monthly installments were unpaid to discuss their circumstances and possible foreclosure avoidance. 24 C.F.R. 203.604. 41. Plaintiff also failed to inform defendants that it would make loan status and payment information available to local credit bureaus and prospective creditors, failed to inform defendants of other assistance, and failed to inform them of the names and addresses of HUD officials to whom further communication could be addressed as required by federal law and the terms of the purported note and mortgage. 24 C.F.R. 203.604. 42. Plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or the originators are required under federal law to adapt its collection and loan servicing practices to a homeowners individual circumstances and to re-evaluate these techniques each month after default. Plaintiff failed to do so in this case. The Wests have the right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by Federal and state laws, regulations, orders and guidelines that have been denied to them by AHMSI and/or Plaintiff and/or DBNTC. 43. Plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or the LPS entities further denied the Wests access to a repayment plan or special forbearance in the form of a written agreement that would reduce or suspend their monthly mortgage payments for a specific period to allow them time to recover from the financial hardship they were suffering through no fault of their own. Such a plan can involve changing one or more terms of the subject mortgage in order to help defendants bring the claimed default current, thereby preventing foreclosure. In fact Plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or the LPS entities induced the Wests to make trial modification/forbearance payments. AHMSI accepted several payments, then inexplicably rejected payments and refused to modify the loan. At this point,
21

AHMSI repeatedly claimed it lost the Wests loan modification paperwork, advised them to stop making payments, and then initiated the foreclosure action. 44. Because plaintiff should have complied with these conditions precedent, plaintiffs foreclosure case against defendants is illegal. Consequently, plaintiff has improperly subjected defendants to this foreclosure action, thereby forcing them to defend the same while charging unnecessary court costs, other related fees, and attorney fees. Nicole Wests credit is slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitute the irreparable harm supporting the need for injunctive relief. As a proximate result of the plaintiff's unlawful actions, the Wests continue to suffer the irreparable harm described above for which monetary compensation is inadequate. Defendants request that the court declare that this foreclosure action is premature and invalid for plaintiffs failure to satisfy certain conditions precedent, dismiss this action, and order plaintiff to provide defendants all foreclosure prevention modification services available under all laws and regulations of the federal and state government. 45. In this case the Plaintiff has been unjustly enriched and sanctioned the acts of fraud of the originator ALLIED and/or OOMC and/or the Securitizers, in accepting and securitizing the subject loan with knowledge of fraud in origination. That fraud included omitting the homeowner Timothy West from the loan even though he was the employed party and had filled out an application to that effect. Inexplicably, the originators processed the loan in the name of Nicole West a stayat-home-mother with no income. 46. Plaintiff, SHVE 2005-OPT4, is the alleged owner and holder of the subject note and mortgage as a holder of bearer paper and not as a holder in due course because it failed to follow the terms of the trust document as to the acquisition of the trust res . Because the plaintiff holds mere bearer paper it is subject to all of the defenses that the alleged maker, Nicole West, would have against the originators of the loan, including illegal predatory lending practices. 47. On information and belief and based on the pattern and practice of misrepresentations in the origination process and during foreclosure proceedings by plaintiff and their attorneys, the Wests assert that the subject mortgage product was sold to them based on the sole factor of whether the purported note and mortgage could be securitized. In doing so, and based on the pattern and practice alleged above, Plaintiff and/or, ALLIED and/or Originators and/or Securitizers disregarded the industry standard for originating loans, represented to the Wests that they were offered a non-predatory mortgage when in actuality the loan was
22

approved due to an inflated appraisal, and loan approval as a result of originators exception department and qualified the Wests for a loan based upon documents falsified by ALLIED38. 48. At all times material hereto, the Wests reasonably relied on plaintiff and/or ALLIED and/or Originators and/or Securitizers to sell them a non-predatory loan based on their reasonable assumption that the loan would default because the loan was designed to fail. If a lender issues an adjustable rate mortgage 39 with a five year introductory interest only period, the loan negatively amortizes and causes the principal amount owed during that interest only period to increase beyond the original loan amount. In addition the loan is linked to the LIBOR index and provides for an interest rate change every six months which would result in payments increasing if LIBOR increased. The subject loan also carried a substantial prepayment penalty during the first twenty-four months. 49. Plaintiff, ALLIED and/or Originators and/or Securitizers could reasonably foresee that the Wests would rely on OOMCs decision to qualify them for the loan because it is reasonable to assume that the Wests would rely on their presumed offer of a non-predatory consumer loan. Plaintiff and/or ALLIED and/or Originators and/or Securitizers are in the business of qualifying borrowers for loans and are held to a duty not to engage in predatory lending practices. Moreover their expertise in the origination business implies that the Wests possessed the necessary qualifications to obtain the loan at issue. 50. An analysis of all the loans in the SVHE 2005-OPT4 Trust revealed that other borrowers with substantially the same or worse credit as the Wests received fixed rate loans with lower interest rates at the same time the Wests were denied this type of long term sustainable loan. The basis of that action stems from a fraud based kickback incentive, Yield Spread Premium, (YSP) paid to the broker, Allied by OOMC. The Plaintiff was aware as the YSP is on the face of the HUD-1 and the YSP can be recaptured as part of representations and warranties in the agreements between the parties.
38

The U.S. Congress recognized that a reckless disregard of foreclosure risk in originating a loan is predatory when it enacted the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, [a] creditor shall not engage in a pattern or practice of extending credit to consumers under mortgagesbased on the consumers collateral without regard to the consumers repayment ability, including the consumers current and expected income, current obligations and employement.15 U.S.C. 1639(h) 39 Hereafter ARM
23

51. In addition ALLIED and/or Originators and/or Plaintiff failed to disclose important material information in a clear and conspicuous manner to the Wests during in the origination process as required by federal and state law. Failure to include such information violates TILA and failure to properly inform the Wests regarding their liability under the purported note amounts to fraud. 52. The Wests have not received the required disclosures to date. As such, the right of rescission was improperly taken away because the Wests did not have the 3 days to review the paperwork and had they had the documents assert that right. The right of rescission clock never starts ticking until all material disclosures are delivered to the consumer. Requirements for closed- and open-end loans are found in 12 CFR 226.23 and 12 CFR 226.15, respectively. The appropriate number of copies(3) was not furnished to each person entitled to rescind. Violation of [226.23(b)(1) or 226.15(b)] . 53. At all times relevant to this case, ALLIED and/or the originators and/or Plaintiff was in the business of providing home loans to people that qualified pursuant to accepted underwriting standards. In an attempt to issue as many loans as possible, ALLIED and/or the originators and/or Plaintiff violated not only TILA and RESPA requirements, but committed fraud and misrepresented material facts to borrowers ranging from negligent misrepresentation to intentional misrepresentation upon defendants in this case because these entities made misrepresentations of material facts that they believed to be true but which were in fact false, thereby negligently making the statement because they should have known the representations were false and were intended to induce the Wests to rely on the misrepresentations, which resulted in the Wests acting in justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentations. 54. The Wests contend that the aforesaid failures to provide them with reliable information from which they could make an informed decision as to the terms of the loan product offered was intentional because they would rely on the information they provided to them during the origination process and, as a result, would agree to execute the loan. 55. Such misrepresentations may also be characterized as negligent and support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation because ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers were in the business of supplying information as part of their business. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators
24

and/or Securitizers intentionally misled the Wests to obtain their agreement to execute the loan. 56. Because ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers were in the business of qualifying parties qualify for a particular loan. In doing so, mortgage companies, banks, and their underwriters are required to adhere to certain well accepted loan origination processes including, but not limited to, collecting from the loan applicants the information relating to their income, assets, and liabilities. They further review credit scores. This information should affect whether a loan application is qualifiede.g., able to pay the loan back based on certain computations such as loan to value and loan to income ratios. In this case, the underwriting standards were disregarded as in so many other cases to enable ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers to obtain as many loans possible for later securitization. 57. The subject loan product has been found to be a predatory loan by every regulatory agency. The US General Accounting Office (GAO) classifies predatory loans as those that lead to consumer welfare loss because of (i) excessive fees, (ii) excessive interest rates, ..(iv) lending without regard to ability to repay,. (vi) fraud and deception, (vii) prepayment penalties, and/or (viii) balloon payments. Federal and State Agencies Face Challenges in Combating Predatory Lending. General Accounting Office. Consumer Protection. Washington, DC, 2004. pp. 1819. 58. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers were/are in the business of providing information to loan brokers, banks, and other entities as to whether an applicant is qualified. They knew, or should have known and could reasonably foresee that borrowers such as the Wests would rely their expert determination as to whether the Wests could afford the loan throughout the entire loan period, assuming one was actually provided. It goes without saying that borrowers such as the Wests reasonably rely on the presumed superior knowledge and experience in determining whether a certain loan product was appropriate for the Wests. It is counterintuitive that lenders would issue loans to borrowers who could not afford to repay them. 59. In actuality, ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers designed and/or originated loans that would eventually fail for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, increasing interest rates and payments later in the life the of the loan which they knew or should have known would cause borrowers to default based on the information provided to them. In many cases, as
25

is the case here, underwriting requirements were disregarded and supplanted by the policy of obtaining as many loans as possible for securitization. 60. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers intentionally, individually and/or in concert did not analyze whether underwriting policies would be violated by future changes in interest rates in the loans being sold to loan applicants such as the Wests. The agreement was a conspiracy designed to defraud the consumer such as the Wests with predatory loans that violated guidelines such as income to mortgage payment when the interest rate rose upon the first or subsequent payment change dates. 61. Because ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers were required by Federal and State law to provide accurate information to third parties such as the Wests on the basis that they would reasonably rely on ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers determination that the loan product was appropriate for them and the failure to accurately inform the Wests of the true cost of the loan at its inception and later when the rates would change is intentional, negligent, and/or willful and wanton conduct. 62. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers fraudulently omitted material information during the loan processing stage prior to closing to induce the Wests to enter into a loan agreement that was grossly predatory. These unsafe , unsound, unfair acts and practices were designed to maximize its profits by inducing the Wests to enter into a loan agreement that was designed to fail and cause them to fear the loss of their family home. 63. The Wests, and thousands of other consumers, were sold an interest only ARM home loan by ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers which was a deceptively devised financial product. Upon closing of the loan, the Wests were victims of a classic "bait and switch" business practice which resulted in an interest only ARM at a much higher interest rate than disclosed in the loan offer. The loan has a variable rate feature which did not disclose the 6 point Yield Spread Premium or the purpose behind that payment. In fact, all required disclosures were not made at all certainly not within 3 days prior to the loan settlement. After the loan terms substantially changed from the original offered fixed rate loan, subsequent disclosures of material loan terms were not made. 64. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers intentional non-disclosure and failure to inform the Wests that a Yield Spread Premium based
26

incentive to the broker caused them to be forced into a short reset LIBOR adjustable rate mortgage with an unconscionable 6% margin. This non- disclosure of the true liability to the Wests is fraud. Thus, ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers actions were designed to induce the Wests to rely upon the representations which the Wests did to their detriment. 65. The adjustable rate product was an exploding two-year interest only ARM that would convert to a much higher interest rate based on LIBOR plus a 6% margin and this loan was sold with the knowledge the borrowers could not afford the loan once it adjusted. Without the proper disclosures required by law, ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers conduct amounts to fraud, as any failure to include that information was intentional and designed to mislead defendants who relied upon them to operate their business in a safe and sound fashion in compliance with all State and Federal law. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers misrepresented through false assurances, representations, and other deceptive means that the loan would provide a very low interest rate for a period of time and then explode at reset to an unaffordable payment. 66. Specifically, ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers failure to disclose in a cognizable manner that the ARM loan was designed to pay interest only and never to reduce the principle amount. Further, once lured into the loan, defendants could not easily extricate themselves from the unconscionable loan agreement due to stiff and onerous prepayment penalties. 67. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers induced the Wests to enter into the loan agreement by representing that this loan would lower their mortgage payment and would save them money by consolidating unsecured debt as a scheme to maximize the amount of the loan thereby maximizing their profits individually and as co-conspirators. The Wests relied on these misrepresentations and their superior bargain power and sophistication. As a direct and proximate result of ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers representations, and the conduct alleged herein, the Wests were misled into refinancing their primary residence with a highly predatory interest only option ARM loan product. Once the rate and mortgage payment were changed upward, the Wests would default on the loan. 68. The Wests reasonably believed, based upon the misrepresentations contained in the propaganda provided by ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers, that they would be able to refinance their loan and
27

obtain a new loan before their scheduled payments significantly increased. This is another example of fraud during the origination process. It was intentional, and the Wests relied on the misrepresentations, and those misrepresentation induced defendants to enter into the loan agreement. Such misrepresentations violate the mandate and spirit of consumer protection laws such as RESPA, TILA and ECOA. 69. To determine the true nature of an adjustable rate mortgage loan tied to LIBOR plus the addition of a margin is a sophisticated mortgage calculation, that is, and was, far beyond the comprehension of the Wests. At all times relevant, once the Wests accepted the loan, they had no viable option by which to extricate themselves because the loan included an unconscionable, draconian pre-payment penalty for a period up to two years. 70. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, untrue and/or deceptive acts and/or practices were committed with willful and wanton disregard for whether or not the Wests would, in fact, receive a home loan that would actually provide the low interest and payment rate, as promised. The above actions and misrepresentations violated multiple provisions of the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. and Regulation Z. These violations render the loan as contrary to law, illegal, and unenforceable. Further, these violations render the loan unconscionable and/or a contract of adhesion, and likewise, unenforceable as a matter of law because it violates public policy. 71. Specifically, 12 C.F.R. 226.17 and 226.19 require the lender to make disclosures concerning the interest rate and payments in a clear and conspicuous manner. Further, a misleading disclosure is as much a violation of TILA as a failure to disclose at all. ALLIED and/or Plaintiff and/or Originators and/or Securitizers violated 226.17 and 226.19 in that they failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the interest rate upon which the payments listed in the TILD was based. 12 C.F.R. 226.19 provides in pertinent part:

(b) Certain variable-rate transactions. If the annual percentage rate may increase after consummation in a transaction secured by the consumers principal dwelling with a term greater than one year, the following disclosures must be provided at the time an application form is provided or before the consumer pays a non-refundable fee, whichever is earlier . . .
28

(vii) Any rules relating to changes in the index, interest rate, payment amount, and outstanding loan balance including, for example, an explanation of interest rate or payment limitation, 2 year adjustable rate, and interest rate carryover. (Emphasis added). 72. Official Staff Commentary to 12 C.F.R. 226.17(a)(1) states that this standard requires that disclosures be in a reasonably understandable form. For example, while the regulation requires no mathematical progression or format, the disclosures must be presented in a way that does not obscure the relationship of the terms to each other . . . 73. While nondisclosure of TILA required information is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations, equitable tolling is warranted considering the complex nature of the fraud involved in plaintiffs failure to disclose the required TILA information. Because of the nature of the fraud and concealment involved at the inception of the loan origination process through closing, a professional was required to discover the TILA violation together with knowledge of plaintiffs pattern and practice of committing such TILA violations in so many other countless cases. 74. Further, Plaintiff affirmatively concealed the TILA violations by refusing to produce the closing documents pursuant to the Wests requests for copies of all documents relating to the loan. Even assuming arguendo that the statute of limitations to bring these claims was not tolled, as plaintiff has blatantly violated the laws and public policy designed to protect consumers it has unclean hands and as a result are not entitled to relief. Fraud in the Collection Process and Before the Court 75. Additionally, plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or the LPS entities and/or Robosignors and/or have employed a scheme designed to defraud the court and the Wests in an attempt to foreclose the house. Not only has plaintiff misrepresented to the Wests and the court that they are owner and holder of the promissory note and has standing to bring this suit and with the aid of BEK and/or AS have filed specious and illegitimate documents to support its claimed right to collect the note and foreclose the mortgage. 76. Specifically, on information and belief, plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or the LPS entities and/or BEK have caused to be created and/ or recorded and/or filed fraudulently produced assignments of mortgage to plaintiff. Evidence of this fraud
29

is based on information that Linda Green, Jessica Ohde, Cindi Ellis, Pat Kingston and Korell Harp, the individuals who purportedly signed the assignments of mortgage have been involved in creating false documents to support mortgage foreclosure cases. 77. None of the AOM signors had authority to execute the assignments of mortgage in this case. Plaintiff and/or AHMSI and/or BEK and/or AS knew or should have known that the assignments of mortgage were fraudulently created. The AOMs were created to support plaintiffs claims and its counsel have violated debt collection practices acts, have committed fraud upon the court, and have attempted to defraud the Wests of their home through these proceedings by virtue of the use of the fraudulently created AOMs. 78. The Wests demand credit for, and application of, any and all collateral source payments Plaintiff or its trust beneficiaries have received or will be entitled to receive from any source as a result of the default claimed, including credit default insurance, credit default swaps, whether funded directly by insurance and/or indemnity agreement or indirectly paid or furnished by means of federal (e.g.. TARP funds) assistance on an apportioned basis for loans or groups of loans to which the subject mortgage loan of the action is claimed. COUNT I Violations of Federal Fair Debt Collections Act As to Plaintiff, the LPS entities, BEK and AS The Wests reallege and reaver paragraphs herein and further state: 1-78 as though fully set forth

79. The Wests bring this action against plaintiff, the LPS entities, BEK and AS seeking statutory damages for violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. (FDCPA). 80. The FDCPA was enacted to protect all consumers from debt collectors who seek to collect debts through illegal means and who engage in unfair and/or deceptive practices during the collection of a debt. 81. The Wests are consumers within the meaning of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3).

30

82. Plaintiff, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS have engaged in collection of debts as this phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5) allegedly owed by the Wests. Plaintiff, the LPS entities, AHMSI, BEK and AS are debt collectors within the meaning of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege when it obtained possession of the note and mortgage; as such, the Wests may presume that plaintiff obtained the note and mortgage when it was allegedly in default. Consequently, under the law, plaintiff is deemed a debt collector if it obtains a note in default and seeks to collect on the same. 83. Plaintiff, AHMSI, the LPS entities BEK and AS have violated federal law governing Fair Debt Collection on two bases: 1) attempting to collect a debt which plaintiff cannot establish it is entitled to collect; 2) attempting to collect a debt without satisfying condition precedents; and 3) using fraud and misrepresentations, such as, but not limited to, fraudulently produced documents, to support plaintiffs foreclosure case. 84. Based on the documentation and the allegations of the complaint, it appears that plaintiff lacked documentation as to ownership of the note and proper delegation of authority to foreclose the mortgage. Instead, it has relied on documentation that misrepresents to the court and to the parties plaintiffs true rights to the note and wrongfully omitted to allege, according to law, the true owner of the note and mortgage. 85. Plaintiff's lack of standing at the commencement of this case is a fault that cannot be cured by gaining standing after the case has been filed. As a result, the attempt to collect this debt through this action is a violation of state and federal fair debt collection practices as they have failed to establish that the allege debt is owed to plaintiff. 86. As to a failure of a condition precedent, plaintiff, through its counsel BEK and AS, attempt to collect the purported debt without informing defendants of certain mortgage assistance and loss prevention programs pursuant to TARP was an act of bad faith and a violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collections Act 15 U.S.C. 1692f. Plaintiffs misrepresentations and material omissions regarding these programs made their attempt to collect the debt deceptive and unfair to defendants. 87. These failures too constitute violations of state and federal fair debt collection practices protections, and plaintiff, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS are liable for such violations.
31

88. Plaintiff through its authorized agents, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS, sought to foreclose upon the subject mortgage and requested the Court find the Wests responsible for paying these sums and be ordered to pay the amounts to plaintiff. Plaintiff through its authorized agents, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS by ratifying the conduct, requested this Court to enter a deficiency judgment if applicable. 89. Defendants believe that, individually and/or jointly, plaintiff AHMSI, the LPS entities BEK, and AS falsely represented that plaintiff is the real party in interest and further submitted a sworn affidavit which violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) and 15 U.S.C. 1692f. 90. Additionally, plaintiff has employed a scheme of intrinsic fraud upon the court and defendants in an attempt to foreclose the house. Not only has plaintiff misrepresented to defendants and the court that it is the holder of the note and, therefore, has standing to bring this suit, plaintiff, through the aid of its attorneys, have filed specious and illegitimate documents to support its right to collect the note and foreclose the mortgage. 91. Specifically, on information and belief, plaintiff has filed fraudulently produced AOMs in this case. The robosignors lacked authority to execute an AOM from OOMC or AHMSI to plaintiff. Plaintiff and its counsel knew or should have known that the AOMs were fraudulently created. By filing such a document in support of plaintiffs complaint, plaintiff and its counsel have violated state and federal fair debt collection practices acts, have committed fraud upon the court, and have attempted to defraud defendants of their home through these proceedings. 92. As a result of these FDCPA violations, the Wests have been subjected to false and illegal collection activities and have therefore been harmed. AHMSI, the LPS entities, the Robosignors, BEK and AS are the authorized agents of plaintiff, and plaintiff has ratified their wrongful collection practices. 93. It has been necessary for the Wests to retain undersigned counsel. They will incur costs and attorneys fees, and other related expenses, in defending and prosecuting this action and defendants are entitled to reimbursement of costs and attorneys fee pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(3). WHEREFORE, the Wests request this Court to enter a judgment against Plaintiff , AHMSI, the LPS entities, the Robosignors, BEK and AS as follows:
32

(1) Award actual and statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a) against them for violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (2) Attorneys fees and costs; and (3) other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. COUNTII Common Law Fraud and Misrepresentations in the Origination Process As to SCC, RBSH, RBSA, RBSS, RBFP, FASCO and Allied The Wests reallege and reaver paragraphs 1-9, 45-74, as though fully set forth herein and further state: 94. Through the origination process, including negotiation of the terms of the loan, the loan application process, and the closing of the loan, Allied and/or the Originators and/or the Securitizers intentionally misled the Wests to believe they qualified for the loan and would be able to repay the loan pursuant to the terms of the purported note. This cause of action is based upon intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation. 95. Tim West applied for a refinance loan, but Allied and/or the Originators and/or the Securitizers unilaterally decided to process the loan under Nicole West name, fabricating income and employment information. Homeowners made loan application for a fixed rate loan and were bait and switched to an adjustable rate loan. 96. Good faith estimates were not provided within 3 days of loan application as required including early disclosures of detrimental loan terms of prepayment penalty, interest only, and short term adjustable rate loan, margin, index, rounding, and a broker YSP. 97. The Wests 3 day right- of- rescission was taken away as full set of signed documents were never provided at closing. Discrimination was evident in the loan terms forced on Nicole West and as a female she is a protected class. 98. Additionally, the Originators and/or the Securitizers and/or Allied are in the business of supplying its employees, loan officers, independent banks, independent lenders, and/or independent mortgage brokers, among other parties, information as to whether certain borrowers qualify to obtain certain loans pursuant to well-settled
33

underwriting procedures and qualifications. These parties rely on this information in negotiating the terms of loans to borrowers such as the Wests, preparing the loan documents, and closing the loans with borrowers such as the Wests. Being in such a position, plaintiff is liable for the intentional and negligent dissemination of incorrect information where plaintiff could reasonably foresee third parties, such as borrowers and defendants, relying on such information. 99. Because the misconduct during the origination process is tightly intertwined, both intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation are alleged together for convenience. To be clear, the Wests contend that they were intentionally misled to believe that they qualified and were able to afford the loan at issue. Notably, justifiable reliance is not an element of common law fraud. Rather, it must be alleged that a tortfeasor made a false statement concerning a material fact, the tortfeasor knew that statement was false, the tortfeasor intended the other party to rely on the false statement, inducing the party to act, and damages as a consequence. All of these elements are met here and are alleged below with specific facts. 100. Notwithstanding, assuming arguendo that Allied, the Originators and the Securitizers representations were the result of negligent underwriting, they remain liable under a negligent misrepresentation theory, because they are in the business of supplying information to third parties and it is reasonably foreseeable that borrowers such as the Wests would rely on their expert determination through application of underwriting procedures that the loan at issue was appropriate for the Wests. 101. Further, Allied, the Originators and the Securitizers, individually and/or jointly made numerous representations that the Wests would be able to refinance this loan without informing defendants that 2 year adjustable rate would eliminate their equity and their ability to refinance the loan at a later date. In addition, Allied, the Originators and the Securitizers fraudulently omitted material information during the loan processing stage prior to closing to induce the Wests to enter into a loan agreement that was grossly detrimental to them. Plaintiffs unfair acts and practices were designed to maximize its profits by inducing the Wests to enter into a loan agreement that was designed to fail and cause them to lose their home. 102. The Wests, as well as thousands of other consumers, were sold an ARM home loan which was a deceptively devised financial product. The loan has a variable rate feature tied to an index and added margin containing payment caps and floors. Without the proper disclosures required by law, this conduct amounts to
34

fraud, as any failure to include that information was intentional and designed to mislead the Wests. 103. Specifically, failure to disclose in a cognizable manner the true nature of the loan including the index history, the purpose of the margin, and even the rounding code. Further, once lured into the loan, the Wests could not easily extricate themselves from the unconscionable loan agreement due to stiff and onerous prepayment penalties contained in paragraph 6 of the Note. 104. The Wests were induced to enter into the loan agreement after the Originators and/or ALLIED offered financial advice to them that they would benefit from debt consolidation and increasing the debt on the home. This was a scheme to maximize the amount of the loan thereby maximizing profits. The Wests relied on these misrepresentations and executed loan documents containing these misrepresentations. 105. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations, and the conduct alleged herein, the Wests agreed to refinance their primary residence through the predatory 2 year adjustable ARM loan. They also committed extraordinary fraud during the origination process because they knew that Nicole West could not afford any loan as she had no income, and that Tim West was the actual income earner for the family. They possessed the Wests true income information and should have concluded that Nicole West had no ability to pay for this loan. The Wests relied on plaintiffs representation that they would not sell them a loan that they could not afford. 106. The Wests reasonably believed, based upon the representations contained in the documents plaintiff provided, that they would be able to refinance their loan and obtain a new loan before their scheduled payments significantly increased. This is another example of fraud during the origination process. It was intentional, the Wests relied on plaintiffs representations, and those misrepresentations induced the Wests to enter into the loan agreement. All facts which were misrepresented and concealed, as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, were material to the decisions about whether to refinance in that Wests would not have considered the loan but for the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent and/or deceptive acts and/or practices as alleged herein. The purpose was to induce the Wests to refinance the loan. The unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, untrue and/or deceptive acts and/or practices were committed with willful and wanton disregard for whether or not the Wests would, in fact, receive a home loan that would actually benefit them through debt consolidation.
35

107. At all times relevant, once the Wests accepted the loan, they had no viable option by which to extricate themselves because the loan included an unconscionable, draconian pre-payment penalty for a period up to two years. In fact, the securitization strips this provision and creates a separate investment class which will benefit from the prepayment penalties collected. 108. Additionally, plaintiff has employed a scheme of intrinsic fraud upon the court and defendants in an attempt to foreclose the house. Not only has plaintiff misrepresented to defendants and the court that it is the holder of the note and, therefore, has standing to bring this suit, plaintiff, through the aid of its attorneys, have filed specious and illegitimate documents to support its right to collect the note and foreclose the mortgage. 109. Specifically, on information and belief, plaintiff has filed a fraudulently produced assignment of mortgage from OOMC to plaintiff. Evidence of this fraud is based on information that the individuals who purportedly signed the assignment of mortgage on behalf of OOMC and AHMSI, have been involved in creating false documents to support mortgage foreclosure cases. Such individuals are known as robo-signers and these two individuals are widely known to have been involved in numerous other fraudulent transactions. 110. Plaintiff and its counsel knew or should have known that the assignment of mortgage was fraudulently created. By filing such a document in support of plaintiffs complaint, plaintiff and its counsel have violated state and federal fair debt collection practices acts, have committed fraud upon the court, and have attempted to defraud the Wests of their home through these proceedings. 111. The Wests have sustained substantial damages as a direct and proximate result of plaintiffs intentional and/or negligent misrepresentations from the origination process up through and including the fraudulent attempt to collect a loan for which plaintiff does not own or hold. Nicole Wests credit has been slandered, rendering it impossible for defendants to obtain credit to obtain the necessities for their family, such as but not limited to, transportation, food, clothing, repairs to their home and vehicles. The slander to their credit is tangible and ongoing and is based upon a predatory loan which was void ab initio. Additionally, the Wests have incurred substantial attorneys fees and costs in defending this void suit which also lacks standing despite the fraudulent documents filed in support of standing. Lastly, defendants have undergone palpable emotional distress, including insomnia, lack of appetite, and severe anxiety.
36

WHEREFORE, the Wests respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against plaintiff and request damages to be determined by the trier of fact, including attorneys fees and costs. COUNTIII Intentional Interference with Performance on Contract and Predatory Servicing as to AHMSI The Wests reallege and reaver paragraphs set forth herein and further state: 25-44, 75-78 as though fully

112. AHMSI had incentive to refuse payments and intentionally interfere with the borrowers attempt to perform under the contract. Non-Party WL ROSS refinanced the Option One Servicing platform for 97 cents on the dollar for advances made by Option One as servicer. The only method of retrieving the 1.2 Billion dollar investment is to foreclose on the properties under which advances have been made. Upon that conversion event and liquidation, the servicer is repaid for all advances made on the loan from the liquidation proceeds and insurances if available. To recapture the advances the servicer must foreclose and the servicer is reimbursed all advances first and the balance is passed through to investors. This creates a conflict of interest which is expressed here as an intentional interference in the borrowers attempts to perform by rejecting payments, and instituting a foreclosure action 4 days later. 113. Fraud and predatory servicing consisted of all of the following acts: a. Nicole West attempted to make payments via Western Union and a payment was refused which triggered the foreclosure action. b. The Affidavit of Indebtedness was falsified and submitted to the Court in an attempt to enforce the debt. c. AHMSI has sent numerous people to the WEST home, who have knocked on the door, and trespassed in the back yard while AHMSI knew the homeowner was represented by counsel. d. AHMSI has made repeated and harassing phone calls directly to homeowner when AHMSI knew the homeowners were represented by counsel.

37

e. AHMSI promised a loan modification but only offered forbearance, accepted some payments, rejected others, and then attempted to foreclose. f. AHMSI pushed a forbearance agreement under duress that they knew homeowner could not afford in lieu of offering any meaningful relief. g. AHMSI intentionally interfered with the borrower attempts to perform on the contract by refusing payments for its own best interest. h. AHMSI has attempted a conversion of the property and liquidation, with knowledge of and participation in creating falsified documents. 114. As a direct and proximate result of the acts set forth in this Count, the Wests have suffered damages including but not limited to psychological and physical pain and suffering, damage to their credit reputation, the expense of retaining counsel and defending the foreclosures and other reasonable and foreseeable damages. Plaintiff has also had to hire undersigned counsel and seeks damages for the litigation fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes 57.105. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court award them damages for the claims set forth herein including litigation fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. . COUNT IV- CIVIL CONSPIRACY As to Plaintiff, AHMSI, FNF, FNDS, FIS, LPS, LPSDS, DOCX, Ellis, Harp, Green, Chute, Ohde, Kingston, BEK and AS. The Wests reallege and incorporates paragraphs 9-25-44, 51-54 asthough fully set forth herein and further state: 115. The Wests allege that Plaintiff, AHMSI, FNF, FNDS, FIS, LPS, LPSDS, DOCX, Ellis, Harp, Green, Chute, Ohde, Kingston, BEK and AS40 entered into agreement(s), with each other to defraud them by providing false testimony and/or AOMs and/or Affidavits and other documentary evidence regarding the alleged default on the promissory note securing the mortgage on their house to the Court to support their plan to obtain the Wests homestead without legal basis.

40

Hereafter collectively co-conspirators.

38

116. The agreement between the co-conspirators to provide evidence they knew was false and therefore inadmissible and in many instances outright perjury comprises the underlying tort or wrong the co-conspirators have committed against the Wests in furtherance of their unlawful goals. 117. The acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were the following: the preparation and recordation of the three AOMs, the filing and reliance upon the Affidavit of Indebtedness executed by Kathy Smith, a known robo-signor who completely lacked personally knowledge of any of the data contained in the AOI which was created to prove material facts in this case namely, the amount allegedly in default and to whom the debt is owed. 118. Plaintiff did not, and still does not, have sufficient documentation to establish it is was the proper party to bring this action . In an attempt to establish standing, the co-conspirators improperly manufactured three assignments of mortgage and recorded them in the Martin County Official Records. BEK was the Plaintiffs counsel during the time the AOMs were created and AS subsequently ratified the misconduct by acting on Plaintiffs behalf as its authorized agent. In other words, the co-conspirators created false documents to make it appear that Plaintiff was the proper party to bring this action. 119. The Wests were sued for foreclosure of their homestead without first being given the right to pursue the federally-required pre-foreclosure loss mitigation opportunities. In addition, the co-conspirators, excluding the Robosignors, proceeded to pretend to engage in loss mitigation/forbearance with the Wests who justifiably relied upon their multiple promises that untold numbers of other homeowners, in addition to the Wests, in this country reasonably relied upon; the promise of working out the alleged defaulted debts so the property owner could resolve the matter without foreclosure. 120. As a direct and proximate result of the acts set forth in this Count, the Wests have suffered damages including but not limited to psychological and physical pain and suffering, damage to their credit reputation, the expense of retaining counsel and defending the foreclosures and other reasonable and foreseeable damages. Plaintiff has also had to hire undersigned counsel and seeks damages for the litigation fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes 57.105. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court award them damages for the claims set forth herein including litigation fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. .
39

COUNT VABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS As to Plaintiff, AHMSI, LPS entities, BEK and AS Plaintiff realleges and reavers paragraphs 9-78 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 121. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages based upon Plaintiff, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS abuse of the legal process in connection with this lawsuit. 122. From the filing of this action to present, Plaintiff did not have sufficient documentation to establish it is the proper party to bring this action and the documentation upon which it relied on for standing was improperly manufactured by AHMSI and/or the LPS entities in conjunction with the Robosignors and/or BEK. 123. They created and/or used false documents in an effort to obtain a foreclosure judgment against the Wests. These documents include the aforementioned AOMS and Affidavit of Indebtedness . Furthermore there is an issue as to whether the individuals name that appears on those documents has any information, personal or otherwise, relating to the information contained in the document and/or the authority to sign the documents. 124. The Plaintiff, BEK and AS utilized the AOMS and affidavit (s) of indebtedness and in this legal process to falsely represent to the Court that Plaintiff had the requisite standing to bring this mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and the sums due to be included in the foreclosure final judgment and/or deficiency decree. 125. By creating and utilizing the false documents these parties misused legal process and the Court system to promote their best interests by misleading the Court as to Plaintiffs right to bring this lawsuit and by misleading the Court as to the legitimacy of alleged evidence that they were relying upon to support their claims against the Wests. 126. These parties should not have abused the foreclosure process by filing false documents to support their claim that Plaintiff was the proper party to bring this action. Their actions were willful and constituted an intentional misuse of process in an effort to wrongfully foreclose upon the Wests property. Therefore, they misused civil legal process against the Wests in an effort to accomplish the foreclosure upon their home based upon false documents.
40

127. As a direct and proximate result of the acts set forth in this Count, the Wests have suffered damages including but not limited to psychological and physical pain and suffering, damage to their credit reputation, the expense of retaining counsel and defending the foreclosure and other reasonable and foreseeable damages. The Wests have also had to hire undersigned counsel and seeks damages for the litigation fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes 57.105. WHEREFORE, the Wests requests actual and special damages including attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. against Plaintiff, AHMSI, the LPS entities, BEK and AS jointly and severally for abuse of legal process. 128. Pursuant to 768.72 (2002), FLA. STAT., Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages upon a showing by evidence in the record providing a basis for recovery of such damages. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.- neither the note nor mortgage contain jury trial waivers and the counter-claims are for damages so the Wests demand a jury trial.

Jacqulyn Mack, Esquire MACK LAW FIRM CHARTERED 2022 Placida Road Englewood, Florida 34224-5204 And 27 Fletcher Ave. Sarasota, FL 34237 (941) 475-7966 Attorneys for the Wests Florida Bar No.:0134902

41

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail to: Can Guner, Esq., Ablitt/Scofield P.C., The Blackstone Building, 100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 on this ______ day of January, 2012.

__________________________ Jacqulyn Mack

42