foreclosure fraud complaint vs wells fargo

8/22/2019 Foreclosure Fraud Complaint vs Wells Fargo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreclosure-fraud-complaint-vs-wells-fargo 1/61

3624 2nd Amended Complaint 13CV-26

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, RUTHERFORD COUNTY

AT MURFREESBORO

David B. Starkey ) CASE NO: 13CV-26

3624 Lascassas Pike )

Murfreesboro, TN., 37130 ) Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff, Pro Se )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VS. ) ON ALL ISSUES SO

) TRIABLE

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. )IKE MOSES (AGENT OF WELLS) )

WILSON AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC )

FEDERAL HOME LOAN )

MORTGAGE CORPORATION )

)

DOES 1-1000 INCLUSIVE )

3624 LASCASSAS PIKE, )

MURFREESBORO, TN. 37130 ) _________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

1. This Chancery Court has Jurisdiction and Venue over this

matter. (T.C.A. 29-14-103 and T.C.A. 16-11-101)

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, a

resident of the County of Rutherford, State of Tennessee, and is

the title owner of the real property situated at 3624

LASCASSAS PIKE, MURFREESBORO, TN 37130

(Property). Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the

State of Tennessee.

3. Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. (Wells) is and was, at

all times material, a corporation organized in the State of

Delaware doing business in the State of Tennessee county of Rutherford. Wells is and was, at all times material hereto, the

alleged "loan originator" and "servicer" of the “subject loan”.




4. Defendant IKE MOSES (Ike) is and was, at all times material

the “originating” agent employed by Defendant WELLS

FARGO BANK N.A. doing business in Rutherford County

Tennessee and having his office at 3243 E. 35th

St., St. Louis

MO 63376. Defendant IKE MOSES is and was, at all timesmaterial hereto, the agent of the alleged "loan originator" of the

“subject loan”.

5. Defendant, WILSON & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C (Wilson) is a

Tennessee corporation, and acts as a Debt Collector and acting

as a substitute trustee engaged in the business of conducting

non-judicial foreclosures of real property in Rutherford County

Tennessee.

6. Defendant FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public

government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in

unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia at 8200 Jones Branch

Dr. Mc Lean, VA 22102-3110. FHLMC buys Promissory

Notes and Deeds of Trust on the secondary market, pools them,

and sells them as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to

investors on the open market. FHLMC at all times material

hereto was purchasing Promissory Notes and Deeds of Trust

with property located in Rutherford County Tennessee.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7.

Plaintiff makes no admissions unless expressly admitted herein.

8. Around May of 2007 Plaintiff responded to an online internet

solicitation from Defendant Ike acting as agent for Defendant

Wells that was offering Plaintiff a home loan from Defendant

Wells.

9. Plaintiff was led to believe by Defendant Ike that he would be

engaging in a “mortgage loan transaction” with DefendantWells as the “lender of funds” on or about June 7, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security




10. All documents used by Defendant Ike to facilitate the purported

“home loan” for Plaintiff were completed by Defendant Ike.

11. Upon information and belief Defendant Wells used Plaintif f’s

note as “value" and then used a portion of the proceeds acquired

to appear as a “loan” from Defendant Wells for the acquisitionof Plaintiffs Property. Defendant Wells did not use their funds

to facilitate the alleged loan and thereby intentionally

misrepresented itself as the “lender” in the transaction.

12. The purported “mortgage loan transaction” was not a loan from

Defendant Wells, but consisted merely of transfers and

exchanges of credits amongst bookkeeping entries ultimately

using funds in a large pool of funds provided by “investors” inMortgage Backed Securities (MBS).

13. Said bookkeeping entries did not follow regulations for

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). But used

“off balance sheet transactions”.

14. The purported “mortgage loan transaction” with Defendant

Wells was and is by information and belief part of a

securitization scheme whereby investors in Mortgage Backed

Securities (MBS) were the source of funds for Plaintiffs “loan”

and not Defendant Wells.

15. Plaintiff denies there was a loan from Defendant Wells to him

as is alleged in Defendants unverified copies of alleged

promissory note and Deed of Trust (DOT).

16. By information and belief Defendant Wells misrepresentation

of themselves as the “lender” and source of funds for Plaintiffs

“loan” has led to the recording of a false DOT in the

Rutherford County Property Records ultimately placing a cloud

upon the Plaintiffs title to his property.

17. The purported loan transaction between Plaintiff and DefendantWells lacked any consideration from Wells.




18. By information and belief Defendant Wells is not the true

lender for Plaintiffs “purported loan transaction” therefore, they

are not the true beneficiary of any Promissory Note or Deed of

Trust associated with Plaintiffs Property.

19. Plaintiff denies the alleged “Note” and the alleged DOT. Thetrue lender was not identified and the “Note” was then

securitized. Therefore the terms of the “Loan” reflect a

transaction that did not occur. The true transaction is

undocumented.

20. Plaintiff denies the alleged “Note” since it is not evidence of

the actual transaction.

21. Plaintiff denies the alleged DOT because it secures the

defective “Note”.

22. By information and belief Defendant Wells has recorded a

fraudulent Deed of Trust Document in the property records of

Rutherford County claiming to be the “lender” and therefore

clouding the title to Plaintiffs Property.

23. Plaintiff never received an executed copy of the alleged

promissory note or agreement that possesses Plaintiffs bona fide

signature or a receipt for signing said note or a check in return

for signing said note.

24. Defendant Wells has not established the validity of the alleged

promissory note or its existence.

25. By information and belief Defendant Wells took Plaintiffs

promissory note, materially altered it and then transferred it to

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation FHLMC (see

Exhibits D & E).

26. By information and belief FHLMC securitized Plaintiffs loan

placed it in a “pool” of notes and sold it as a Mortgage BackedSecurity (MBS).




27. Defendant Wells is not the holder in due course or the agent for

the holder in due course of Plaintiffs promissory note. And

cannot show through GAAP that they obtained Plaintiffs note

by providing any compensation or consideration to Plaintiff.

28. Defendant Wells has not produced the original promissory notewith Plaintiff’s name on it and any alleged “assignments” for

Plaintiff to examine despite numerous written requests from

Plaintiff (see Exhibits A, C, N & O).

29. It is essential for the Plaintiff to establish that the entity that is

demanding payment of a negotiable note, or to whom payment

is made, is the duly qualified holder of the note. Plaintiff is

exposed to the risk of double payment, or at least to the expenseof litigation incurred to prevent duplicative satisfaction of the

instrument. Plaintiff has a recognizable interest in demanding

proof of the chain of title and the holder in due course of his

promissory note.

30. Plaintiffs purported “loan transaction” was and is subject to

undisclosed agreements to which Plaintiff was not a party, in

violation of TCA Title 47 and Tennessee and Federal statutes.

31. Plaintiff denies that any default on above mentioned alleged

loan exists.

32. By information and belief third party payments have been made

on the obligation and money has changed hands.

33. No full accounting or proof of loss by any Defendant has been

provided in support of the alleged default despite numerous

requests by Plaintiff. (See Exhibits A, C, N and O)

34. August 02, 2012: Defendant Wells received the first of threeQualified Written Requests (QWR) from Plaintiff pursuant tothe Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)12 U.S.C. §

2605 and a Debt Validation Letter (DVL) pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (Exhibit A)




35. Plaintiffs QWR’s were an effort to obtain the principal balanceclaimed owed, an accounting, proof of loss, validation of thedebt claimed and the Holder of Plaintiffs note concerning Plaintiffs property and Defendant Wells account #0073690109.

36. September 1, 2012: Wells improperly responded to the firstQWR. (Exhibit AA) and informed Plaintiff that additionalinformation may be had by calling their Subpoena Line.

37. Defendant Wells dishonored the statutory requests and provided

no 20-day acknowledgement and only a partial and insufficient

60-day response to the QWR and DVL.

38. Defendant has produced no enforceable original note with any

assignment or allonge proving up the chain of title.

39. April 19, 2013 The Department of Treasury Office of theComptroller of Currency issued a letter to Defendant Wells andthe other national banks issuing Operating standards for

scheduled foreclosure sales (see Exhibit AAA). On page 2under the heading of Minimum Pre-Foreclosure Sale Review Standards:

1. Is the loan’s default status accurate?

2. Does the servicer have and can demonstrate the appropriatelegal authority to foreclose (documented assignments, note

endorsements, and other necessary legal documentation, asapplicable)?

40. Defendant Wells refuses to answer plaintiff’s questionsconcerning any default and the principal balance claimed owed,an accounting, proof of loss, validation of the debt claimed andthe Holder of Plaintiffs note concerning Plaintiffs property andDefendant Wells account #0073690109 (Exhibit A, C, N, O)

Defendant Wells responded to Exhibit A by saying : “plaintiff’squestions were too broad”.




41. Defendant Wells did send a purported “true and exact”photocopy of the alleged note (Exhibit B) in response toPlaintiffs 1st QWR.

42. Plaintiff denies that the alleged “copy” of the alleged “note” is atrue and correct representation of plaintiff’s original note.

43. September 19, 2012: Defendant Wells received a second QWR from Plaintiff again attempting to obtain the informationrequested pursuant to the above mentioned acts (Exhibit C).

44. On page 22 of Plaintiffs 2nd QWR, Dated September 19, 2012,under paragraph 1 of Default Provisions Plaintiff rescinded any and all power of attorney associated with the above referencedaccount # 708-0073690109 (See Exhibit C).

45. All questions not answered in the first QWR were asked againin the second QWR (Exhibit C) including the request for the

alleged default accounting and the legal authority to foreclose orOwner and Holder in due course of the Plaintiffs promissory note. None of which was revealed by Defendant Wells in theirpartial response to Plaintiffs first QWR.

46. October 30, 2012: Plaintiff also received an improper responseto his second QWR from Defendant Wells dated October 26,2012 (Exhibit D).

47. Defendant Wells once again dishonored the statutory requests

and provided no 20-day acknowledgement and only a partial and

improper 60-day response to the QWR and DVL.

48. Defendant Wells partial response was dated far outside thetwenty day response required by the above mentioned acts.

49. Plaintiff did not receive any answer to any of his questionsabout accounting, proof of loss or Owner and Holder in duecourse of his promissory note.




50. In Defendant Wells partial response to Plaintiffs second QWR Plaintiff was informed that Federal Home Loan MortgageCorporation (FHLMC) or Freddie Mac was the “investor” forthe alleged loan (see Exhibit D pg. 1 paragraph 2).

51. Research into the FHLMC website discovered that FHLMCclaimed “ownership” of Plaintiffs “mortgage” (see Exhibit E).

52. It is essential for the Plaintiff to establish that the entity that is

demanding payment of a negotiable note, or to whom payment

is made, is the duly qualified holder of the note. Plaintiff is

exposed to the risk of double payment, or at least to the expense

of litigation incurred to prevent duplicative satisfaction of the

instrument. These risks provide Plaintiff with a recognizableinterest in demanding proof of the chain of title.

53. December 12, 2012: Plaintiff received a Notice of Trustee’sSale (NTS) from Defendant Wilson (see Exhibit F).

54. In Wilsons NTS, Defendant Wilson claims: “default has

occurred,”

and Wilson was now appointed Successor Trustee.”

55. In Wilsons NTS, Defendant Wilson stated that the “entireindebtedness has been declared due and payable” and that theProperty would be sold January 9, 2013.

56. In NTS Wilson stated that they mailed Plaintiff a HB -3588letter and that notice of sale has been inserted in the local paper

on December 14th, 21st and 28th.

57. Plaintiff denies that Defendant Wilson provided him with aHB -3588 letter.

58. Plaintiff denies any default on the subject loan has occurred.

59. On page 22 of Plaintiffs 2nd QWR, Dated September 19, 2012,under paragraph 1 of Default Provisions Plaintiff rescinded any and all power of attorney associated with the above referencedaccount # 708-0073690109 (see Exhibit C).




60. Defendant Wells had no Power of Attorney to appoint aSuccessor Trustee to Plaintiffs DOT and no proof of default todo so.

61. December 17, 2012: Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Notice of Revocation of Power of Attorney and Termination of Attorney in Fact (RPA) in the Rutherford County Tennessee property records at Book 1181, Page 1238 (see Exhibit G).

62. Affidavit of RPA was filed with regard to the Deed of Trust(DOT) recorded in Book 752 Page 2085 of the RutherfordCounty of Tennessee property records (See Exhibit H).

63. This Affidavit of RPA pertained to the Transfer of rights in theproperty and the illegal waivers of borrower’s rights clauses onsaid DOT.

a. Per Code of Federal Regulations § 617.7010 Title 12 -

Banks and Banking Title PART 617 - BORROWERS

RIGHTS-Subpart A - General Item (c), the borrower'swritten waiver must contain a statement that the

borrower was represented by legal counsel in connection

with execution of the waiver (see Exhibit I).

Plaintiff was not represented by legal counsel in any meeting

with Defendants and there was no statement that the borrower

was represented by legal counsel in connection with execution

of any waivers on any paperwork in reference to the abovementioned transactions.

64. December 17, 2012: Defendant Wilson prepared and filed an

Appointment of Successor Trustee (AST) in the Rutherford

County of Tennessee property records at Book 1181, Page 1141

(see Exhibit J).

65. Because Defendant Wells has failed to, or cannot, provide anyevidence that it has an identifiable interest of any kind in my

Note, that it has the right to enforce my Note, or that it even




knows the identity of such a person (see Exhibit A, C, N, O),

upon information and belief, I therefore deny that Defendant

Wells has demonstrated any condition or circumstance that

would have permitted it to initiate an appointment of a

Successor Trustee or any other terms under my Promissory Note

or Deed of Trust.

66. Upon information and belief, the alleged successor trustee did

not use internal policies or procedures that would permit it to

determine whether the person engaging it to initiate the

foreclosure process under my Security Instrument actually is the

Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note or its duly

appointed servant.

67. Defendant Wilson filed the AST (Exhibit J) after Plaintiff had

filed his Affidavit of Revocation of Power of Attorney (Exhibit

G) regarding the DOT (Exhibit H) referencing his property. And

3 months after plaintiff had originally rescinded the power of

attorney through default provisions in his second QWR (Exhibit

C page 22).

68. Defendant Wells has not verified that it was “the lender” in any

transaction with Plaintiff. And according to the alleged DOT

(Exhibit H pg. 13 #24) only the “lender” may appoint a

successor trustee.

69. Plaintiff has made several attempts to determine the alleged

“lender” status of Defendant Wells with regards to his “note”

(see Exhibits A, C, N & O).

70. Defendant Wells claims to be the “servicer” of the “note”, not

the “Holder in due course”, the “Owner” or the “lender” or the

person entitled to enforce the note.

71. Defendant Wells does not have “lender” status or evidence of

default or power of attorney to appoint Defendant Wilson to bea “successor trustee”.




72. Defendant Wilson had no authority to file the fraudulent

appointment of successor trustee in the Rutherford County land

records.

73. By information and belief the trustee must act as a neutral figure

and perform his duties properly, which prohibits him fromacting as the agent of the alleged beneficiary. When the trustee

is not given a copy of a properly endorsed note and a cognizable

chain of the deed of trust, he is most assuredly not performing

under his duties to the deed of trust.

74. Defendant Wilson was not legally appointed a successor trustee

and Defendant Wells does not have “lender” status and

therefore had no legal basis to “appoint Defendant Wilson as“successor trustee”, issue any default, acceleration or notice of

sale according to the Deed of Trust (see exhibit H).

75. The DOT (see Exhibit H) recorded in Rutherford County

Record Book 752, Page 2097 paragraph 24:

“Substitute Trustee. Lender, at its option, may from

time to time remove Trustee and appoint a successor

trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an

instrument recorded in the county in which this

Security Instrument is recorded.”

76. AST was allegedly signed by one Carol Adams as Vice

President Loan Documentation for Defendant Wells (see

Exhibit J p2).

77. Plaintiff denies this signature to be a true signature of Carol

Adams alleged Vice President Loan Documentation of

Defendant Wells and also denies that Carol Adams was an

employee of Defendant Wells at the time her signature was

allegedly placed on the fraudulent AST.

78. By information and belief said Carol Adams has not worked for Defendant Wells since December 2010 (see Exhibit K p2).




79. Wells Fargo has been censured across the country and sued by

all fifty State Attorney Generals for submitting false, fraudulent,

forged and fabricated documents. This practice is pervasive in

courts across the country. See the statement of Honorable

Arthur M. Schack, New York State Supreme Court made before

the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight andGovernment Reform (Exhibit KK).

80. Defendant Wells has not confirmed verified or proved its

“lender” status with authority to appoint a successor trustee (see

Exhibits A, C, N and O).

81. By information and belief, the Appointment of Successor

Trustee by Defendants Wells and Wilson is fraudulent and void.

82. December 21, 2012: Plaintiff recorded an Affidavit of Forgery

(AF) at Book 1182, Page 3247 of the Rutherford County

Tennessee property records with regard to Wilsons

Appointment of Successor Trustee (see Exhibit L).

83.Plaintiff denies the truthfulness of the contents of WilsonsAppointment of Successor Trustee that was recorded December

17, 2012 at 9:00 am, in Record Book 1181, Page 1147, Official

Records of Rutherford County, Tennessee (see Exhibit J)

84. Defendant Wells allegedly sold Plaintiffs note to FHLMC (see

Exhibit D pg.1 para.2 and Exhibit E).

85. Defendant Wells failed to execute an assignment of Deed of

Trust in the Rutherford County property records documenting

the sale of Plaintiffs note to FHLMC or its effect upon the Deed

of Trust further clouding Plaintiffs title to the subject property.

86. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., used funds from investors in MBS to

obtain Plaintiffs Note simultaneously transferring ownership of

that Note to FHLMC. Any “rights” Defendant Wells may have

claimed under Plaintiffs Note and Deed of Trust wereextinguished at that time.




87. The Promissory note was sold/transferred and Defendant Wells

could no longer be considered “the lender ”. And in fact has not

proved that it ever was the source of funds or (lender) for

Plaintiffs home loan despite numerous requests from Plaintiff

for that proof (Exhibit A, C, N, & O).

88. When a promissory note is sold the originating lender on the

Promissory Note ceases to be the lender if it ever was.

89. When Defendant Wells Negotiated Plaintiffs note and assigned

the note and DOT to FHLMC there was no longer a “lender”

with a power of appointment under the DOT contract.

90. Defendant Wells allegedly sold Plaintiffs Note. Subsequentalleged assignees or “holders” are not “Lenders”; instead, they

are purchasers if in fact they are truly a holder-in-due-course.

91. At the time Defendant Wilson was allegedly appointed as

successor trustee it was not done by an entity that had the power

to do so.

92. There are statutory violations in Defendant Wilsons notice of

the trustee’s sale. Sale was advertised before trustee was legally

appointed or recorded and no “lender” or beneficiary or agent of

Defendant Wells could appoint a trustee.

93. There is no indication an authorized officer claiming power to

substitute the Trustee ever signed or knew about this instrument.

94. Plaintiff requests that Carol Adams alleged Vice President of

Defendant Wells witness her signature on the Appointment of

Successor Trustee document.

95. AST is allegedly notarized by a North Carolina notary who

claims that Carol Adams “ personally came before me this day

and acknowledged that she is the Vice President Loan

Documentation, of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.” (see Exhibit J pg.2). No Drivers license or identification was presented.




96. Plaintiff denies the validity of the signature and notarization

placed upon the AST and humbly requests that alleged notary

Patricia A. Siewert witness her signature and testify to the

presence of Carol Adams at the signing of the AST.

97. Wells Fargo Bank has been censured across the country andsued by all fifty State Attorney Generals for submitting false,

fraudulent, forged and fabricated documents.

98. The United States of America Department of the Treasury

Comptroller of the Currency issued a “Consent Order” (Exhibit

LL) to Defendant Wells where they found (page 2 Article 1

Comptroller Findings #2 ) that Wells:

a. filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts

affidavits executed by its employees or employees of

third-party service providers making various assertions,

such as ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage,

the amount of the principal and interest due, and the fees

and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the

affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit

were made based on personal knowledge or based on a

review by the affiant of the relevant books and records,

when, in many cases, they were not based on such

personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and

records;

b. filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or

in local land records offices, numerous affidavits or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly

notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the

presence of a notary;

c. litigated foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-

judicial foreclosure proceedings without always ensuring

that either the promissory note or the mortgage

document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party at

the appropriate time;




99. Plaintiff denies all aspects of the alleged Appointment of

Successor Trustee filed in the Rutherford County Tennessee

property records by Defendants Wells and Wilson.

100.December 21, 2012: Plaintiff filed a UCC financial statement

registering his claim and securing his continued interest in the property and “note” registered at Book 1182, Page 3256 of the

Rutherford County Tennessee property records (see Exhibit M).

101.December 23, 2012: Defendant Wells received Plaintiffs third

QWR with questions regarding the Property, the holder of the

note and full accounting of the alleged debt (see Exhibit

N).This third QWR is recorded at Book 1181, Page 1242 of the

Rutherford County Tennessee property records. Plaintiff requested for the third time information concerning the Owner

and Holder in due course of his promissory note as well as an

accounting and proof of loss regarding the alleged default

regarding his property.

102.Defendant Wells has not responded to Plaintiffs 3rd

QWR and

has failed to prove that it is the Owner or Holder or an agent of

the Owner or Holder in due course of Plaintiffs Promissory

Note.

103.December 17, 2012: Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Dispute and a

Demand for Validation and Proof of Claim (DVL) (See Exhibit

O), to Defendant Wilson/debt collector in response to Wilsons

Notice of Trustee Sale from December 12, 2012 (see Exhibit F)

stating Plaintiff was in default and his property would be soldat auction January 9, 2013. DVL Notice (Exhibit O) was

recorded in Rutherford County Tennessee property records at

Book 1182 Page 3249 December 21, 2012

104.January 2, 2013: Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Trustee

Obligations (NTO) to Defendants Wells, Wilson and Weiss

(see Exhibit P).

105.NTO was recorded in Rutherford County Tennessee Property

records at Book 1183 Page 1962 on December 26, 2012.




106.On page 2 of NTO Plaintiff again gave notice of rescinding the

above referenced loan transaction with Defendant Wells.

Defendants were again notified by certified mail, return receipt

requested.

107.Plaintiff exercised his right to rescind the alleged loan

transaction under the three day, three year, usury and general

claims theories and causes of action.

108.January 2, 2013 Plaintiff sent a Notice of Rescission (NOR) to

Defendants Wells, Wilson, and Weiss and to FHLMC (Exhibit

Q).

109.NOR was recorded in the property records of Rutherford

County Tennessee at Book 1185 Page 1000.

110.NOR also served as a Demand letter citing possible causes of

action to be Appraisal Fraud, Usury, Common Law Fraud in

the Inducement, Common Law Fraud in the Execution,

Security Violation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Fair Debt

Collections Pr actices Act, Federal Trade Commission’s

Safeguard Rule, TILA, RESPA and RICO.

111.January 3, 2013: Plaintiff received a deficient response to his

DVL from Defendant Wilson which was dated December 31,

2012 (See Exhibit R).

112.Defendant Wilson’s deficient Response did not indicate the

amount of the alleged debt nor did it validate the alleged debt

as required by the above referenced Acts.

113.Defendant Wilson simply stated that “it appears that the debt is

valid.” (See Exhibit R Paragraph 1 lines 1&2)

114.Defendant Wilson also sent a purported “true copy” of thealleged Note in response to Plaintiffs DVL (see Exhibit S).




115.Defendants Wells and Wilson have never proved foundation

standing or authority to bring any action under Plaintiffs

Promissory Note or Deed of Trust despite numerous attempts

by Plaintiff to obtain Verification of the debt, proof of loss,

Owner and Holder in due course of the Plaintiffs promissory

Note.

116.Defendant Wells claims to be the “servicer” of the “loan”, and

as such cannot institute or maintain any action under the Note

or DOT without proper authority from the Owner and Holder in

due course of the promissory note.

117.Defendant Wells refuses to explain the business relationships

among the securitization parties, remaining silent on thesubject, thereby denying and concealing the very existence of

the parties, the agreements among them, and the substantial

money that changed hands (Exhibits A, C, N, O).

118.Plaintiff has received conflicting representations as to the

alleged creditor’s identity, and believes there exists a title

defect or cloud on the title to his property.

119.Defendant Wells has not demonstrated actual loss or threatened

injury as a consequence of any unverified alleged default.

120.Defendant Wells has benefitted financially from the “loan

transaction” with Plaintiff.

121.Severance of the ownership and possession of the original noteand DOT has occurred.

122.Plaintiff alleges that the original promissory note no longer

exists and is invalid as it is based solely upon purported copies

which have no force and effect.

123.Plaintiff affirmatively asserts that the documents proffered and

actions of the parties are in fact part of a criminal joint venture

in which Plaintiff was the victim.




124.Plaintiff denies that Defendant Wells and/or its agents have

ever disclosed/proved the true beneficiary on any document or

in any other media, oral or written in violation of TCA Title 47.

125.Plaintiff denies the validity of the deed of trust filed in the

Rutherford County property records by Defendant Wells because of the absence of a true beneficiary causing a fatal

defect in the instrument and ultimately clouding the title to

Plaintiffs property.

126.Plaintiff denies Defendant Wells has any legal right to declare a

default or acceleration or appoint a successor trustee or initiate

a power of sale provision in any Deed of Trust associated with

plaintiff’s property.

127.Plaintiff denies that a substitute trustee was ever appointed by

any person or entity authorized to do so.

128.Defendants have continued their collection efforts in spite of

providing no information, disclosure or evidence of any kind

establishing their purported rights to foreclose or collect againstthe Plaintiff.

129.Upon information and belief, I have no agreement with

Defendants; they are owed nothing by me; and Defendants do

not own or control any interest or right in my Promissory Note

that permits any of them to enforce my Note in accordance with

the constraints of TCA Title 47. Furthermore, these facts apply

equally to any company for which Defendants might claim theyare working for to enforce my DOT in any way shape or form.

130.Upon information and belief, my Note is not in default, I have

received no presentment per the constraints of the TCA to the

contrary, and I owe nothing to Defendants or any company they

purport to be working for.

131.Upon information and belief, I owe nothing to Defendants; Ihave seen no evidence or presentment that any amount is still

due under my Note. Furthermore, I maintain that the balance




due under my Note is not relevant to the controlling question of

whether Defendants have any right by law to enforce my Note

pursuant to the TCA.

132.Upon information and belief, I deny that any past transactioninvolving my Note or DOT created in Defendants a legal right

to now make demands on me for payment related to my Note,

declare my Note in default, or otherwise enforce my Note per

the TCA, and Defendants have refused to provide genuine

evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, I owe Defendants

nothing, I owe nothing to whatever company Defendants may

allege to be serving, and Defendants have no right to enforce

my DOT when I owe nothing to it or whatever person for which it may be working.

133.Upon information and belief, I owe Defendants nothing; I owe

nothing respecting my Note to any company for which

Defendants might work; they have no right to enforce my Note

pursuant to the TCA; and they have no right to trigger the

power of sale under my DOT for the purpose of taking my

home via foreclosure under a mistaken or fraudulent claim that

they have the legal right to collect an unsatisfied obligation

owed by me.

134.Upon information and belief, the threatened foreclosure is in

violation of my rights because the power of sale pursuant to my

DOT has not been initiated by the person entitled to enforce my

Note pursuant to the TCA Title 47, or that person’s servant; thealleged trustee did not receive instructions to commence this

foreclosure from the person to whom the obligation of my Note

is owed, or that person’s servant; and I do not owe anything to

the person for whose benefit the threatened foreclosure is

allegedly being conducted. Accordingly, the threatened

foreclosure violates the terms of my Note and DOT, and it

violates Tennessee’s nonjudicial foreclosure law, which

necessary requires application of the TCA regarding the issueof who has a right to enforce my Note.




135.Upon information and belief, Defendants have refused to, or

cannot, produce evidence that they have any right to enforce

my Note, for itself or any other person, even though I requested

that proof from Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants have

admitted pursuant to the TCA that I owe it nothing, that it has

no right or standing to make demands related to my Note, andthat I did not dishonor my Note as a result of refusing to

comply with Defendants unsupported and mistaken or

fraudulent demands,. Furthermore, I maintain that, because I

owe nothing to Defendants, or any company for which they

work, they have no right to foreclose on my house because it

can show no unsatisfied obligation that is secured by my DOT.

136.Defendants have failed or refused to comply with the requests Ihave made through my QWR’s to it. It has f ailed or refused to

produce genuine evidence establishing that it or any person it

knows is the Owner and Holder in due course with the rights of

an Owner of my Note.

137.Upon information and belief, I deny that Defendant Wells is the

Owner and Holder in due course of my Note or a servant of that

Owner following instructions issued by that Owner respecting

my Note and Security Instrument.

138.Upon information and belief, Defendants have admitted that

my Note is not in default, that I owe it nothing, and that I have

not dishonored or breached my Note by refusing to comply

with the demands they made on me.

139.Upon information and belief, Defendant Wells is not the real

party in interest because it has no economic or beneficial

interest in my Note and Security Instrument.

140.Defendant Wells lacks authority to discharge my obligation

under my Note or to otherwise settle the dispute before this

Court should settlement efforts be attempted during this

lawsuit.




141.Defendant Wells is not the Owner and Holder in Due Course of

my promissory Note or is it that Owners servant with respect to

my Note and Security Instrument.

142.Two alleged “true copies” of my purported promissory note, as

they were sent to me by Defendant Wells and Defendant

Wilson in partial response to QWR’s are attached as Exhibits B

and S respectively hereto. They reflect no indorsements or

allonges but, upon information and belief, my note has been

sold, exchanged, traded assigned, or otherwise transferred since

then. See the claim of ownership by Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) at Exhibit E.

143.Upon information and belief, my Note has been sold, assigned,

exchanged, traded, or otherwise transferred many times since

its creation.

144.Upon information and belief, my Note is a negotiable

instrument pursuant to Tennessees’ version of the Uniform

Commercial Code TCA Title 47-3-104. As such, only the

person qualified by TCA 47-3-301 has the right to enforce the

Note, and necessarily the right to enforce my DOT, which is

only incidental to my Note.

145.Defendants have failed to, or cannot, provide verifiable and

complete information explaining how they acquired or obtained

an interest of any kind in my Note, even though I requested

such proof (Exhibits A, C, N, & O). Upon information and

belief, therefore, I deny that Defendants have any interest in my

Note, whether as owner, possessor, or person with a right to

enforce my Note pursuant to TCA 47-3-301.

146.Defendants have refused to, or cannot, identify the person who

has the right to enforce my Note pursuant to TCA 47-3-301,




even though I have requested such proof (Exhibit A, C, N and

O). Upon information and belief, therefore, I deny that

Defendants are an agent or representative of any person

actually having the right to enforce my Note.

147.Defendants have failed to, or cannot, provide information

regarding the balance, if any, due under my Note, even though I

requested that information (Exhibits A, C, N, and O). I have

received no information regarding the balance due, if any,

under my Note from any person having demonstrated the right

to enforce my note pursuant to the strictures of TCA 47. I

therefore do not know if any amount is still due and I have not

received any presentment respecting my Note, as defined by

TCA 47- 3-501. Upon information and belief, therefore, I deny

that any balance is due under the Note, and furthermore, I

maintain that questions or answers about the amount still due, if

any, under my Note have no bearing on the crucial legal issue

of whether Defendants have any right to enforce any obligation

under my Note.

148.Upon information and belief, I deny that any default exists

under the Note or that the Note has been dishonored or

breached pursuant to TCA 47-3-502 as a result of my having

refused to comply with the unsupported claims of Defendants.

Furthermore, I maintain that no discussion of default or

dishonor bears on the question of law as to whether Defendantshave any right to enforce my Note pursuant to TCA 47-3.

149.Defendants have failed to, or cannot, provide the chain of

ownership and authority respecting my Note since its creation,

including the circumstances and details of each alleged transfer,

sale, or exchange, even though I requested same (Exhibits A, C,

N and O). Upon information and belief, I therefore deny thatDefendants have any legal interest in my Note, that I have any




obligation to them pursuant to my Note, or that it even knows a

person with the right to enforce the Note.

150.Because Defendants have failed to, or cannot, provide any

evidence that they have an identifiable interest of any kind in

my Note, that it has the right to enforce my Note, or that it even

knows the identity of such a person, upon information and

belief, I therefore deny that Defendants have demonstrated any

condition or circumstance that would have permitted them to

initiate any action under the terms of my DOT.

151.TCA 47-3 requires anyone making demands under my Note to

first prove a right, recognized under TCA 47-3, to enforce the

Note. Defendants have failed to do that, and their failure, for

whatever reason, is a tacit admission that it has no right to

enforce my Note and that I do not owe anything to them or any

company for which they are acting as servant.

152.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee attempting to

foreclose my home does not know the identity of the person

authorized by TCA 47-3 to enforce my Note.

153.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee was not

appointed to that position by the owner/holder/beneficiary of

the Note or its duly appointed agent, and, accordingly the

alleged trustee has no authority to initiate or conduct a

foreclosure pursuant to the terms of my DOT and Tennessee

nonjudicial foreclosure law.

154.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee has made no

effort to verify the identity of the owner/holder of the Note and

has therefore Breached its duty to that owner/holder and also to

Plaintiff by commencing and conducting the foreclosure process.




155.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee initiated the

threatened foreclosure for the purpose of delivering the

foreclosure sale proceeds or the title to my home to a person

other then the owner/holder of the note, contrary to the terms of

the Note, the DOT and Tennessee nonjudicial foreclosure law.

156.Upon information and belief, my DOT does not authorize the

alleged trustee to initiate a foreclosure of its own volition, and

yet it received no instruction to do so form the owner/holder or

its servant. Accordingly, no power of sale has been triggered,

so any attempted foreclosure is not valid or authorized.

157.Upon information and belief, I owe no debt to the alleged

trustee or whomever it claims to be serving.

158.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee did not initiate

the subject foreclosure pursuant to the terms of the DOT and

the Note, and therefore is participating in a mistake or fraud

respecting the foreclosure of my home.

159.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee has violated

the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes by having initiated a

foreclosure that is not authorized by the DOT or the Note it

secures; by having taken its instruction to commence the

foreclosure from a person who is not the owner/holder/lender

or the legal representative of such person ; by having

commenced the subject foreclosure when, in fact, the Note

served by the DOT is not in default or dishonored; and by

having commenced the subject foreclosure, not for the benefit

of the owner/holder, but instead for the purpose of delivering

the foreclosure sale proceeds or title to the house to a person

other than the owner/holder of the Note, in violation of

Tennessee nonjudicial foreclosure law.




160.Upon information and belief, I deny that Defendant Wells

obtained possession of the physical Note via a voluntary

transfer of all the interests in my Note from a person who at

that time was the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note.

161.Upon information and belief, I deny that Defendant Wells has

possession of the true physical Note, or even knows its

whereabouts, and that it didn’t have possession of the Note

when it illegally commenced its foreclosure process and

fraudulent appointment of successor trustee.

162.Upon information and belief, I deny that Defendant Wells can

or is willing to produce the true Note for inspection during this

lawsuit.

163.Upon information and belief, I deny having received notice that

a default exists under my Note from a person who was at that

time the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note or that

Owners servant who was then following instruction of that

Owner to so inform me.

164.Upon information and belief, never having received notice of

default under my Note from the Owner and Holder in Due

Course of my Note or its duly appointed servant, I deny that

any condition exists under my Security Instrument that would

trigger a power of sale or foreclosure of my Property.

165.Upon information and belief, never having received notice of

default under my Note from the Owner and Holder in Due

Course of my Note or its servant, I deny that any refusal on my

part to make payments or to comply with any demand made by

Defendants in any way evidences my dishonor of my Note, the

creation of any delinquency, or a condition triggering any rightto foreclose or use a power of sale under the Security

Instrument.




166.Upon information and belief, I deny that my opponent’s ability

to write demand letters and to make threats regarding my Note

and Security Instrument establishes in any way that it has a

right to enforce either.

167.Even though Defendants Wells and Wilson have admitted that

they have no right to enforce my Note and Security Instrument,

I nevertheless maintain that I have never received complete

accounting information from the Owner and Holder in Due

Course of my Note or its servant respecting the balance due, if

any, on my Note. I have received no information about

insurance proceeds, claim settlements, or indorsement warranty

payments having been received or sought by the Owner and

Holder in Due Course respecting my Note. Lacking

information to the contrary, I deny that any balance is still

owed regarding my Note.

168.Because Defendant Wells is not the Owner and Holder in Due

Course of my Note or a servant of that Owner, I further deny

that Defendants comments or questions about my Note elevate

in the least its legal status or right to enforce my Note pursuant

to the controlling law, i.e. Tennessee version of the Uniform

Commercial Code, TCA Title 47.

169.Any interpretation of my Note that potentially subjects me to

multiple claims regarding my Note was never intended and was

never disclosed to me as being a possible result by Defendants

Wells and Ike. I never knowingly intended to waive or disclaim

my right to only have to pay the one person entitled to enforce

my Note, and the “Lender” never discussed that possibility or

asked me to make such a waiver or disclaimer. Any

interpretation of my Note to the contrary would be a mistake, aviolation of my fundamental rights, and not reflective of the

intent and purpose of that agreement. Only the one true Owner




and Holder in Due Course of my Note as defined by the UCC

and TCA Title 47, for a particular time has any right to enforce

my Note, and that is not Defendants Wells or Wilson.

170.Any interpretation of my Security Instrument that would permit

a person other than the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my

Note to initiate and prosecute the foreclosure of my Property or

appoint a successor trustee was never intended and was never

disclosed or addressed by Defendants Wells and Ike as a

possible result. Therefore, any such interpretation of the

purpose or intent of that document would be mistake, invalid

and inconsistent with my rights and any agreement I may have

intended to make with the purported “Lender”.

171.Defendant Wells and Ike never disclosed or addressed that by

executing its forms I would be construed to have relinquished

my right to only pay my obligation to the person legally

entitled to enforce it. That possibility was never mentioned by

Defendant Wells or Ike, and I never knowingly agreed to anysuch possibility. Further, I was never asked to, nor did I agree

to honor demands regarding my Note made by anyone who

didn’t prove the actual right by law to enforce my Note. Any

assertion to the contrary by Defendants will be mistake or

fraud, and inconsistent with any agreement I may have made

with the undisclosed “lender ”.

172.Upon information and belief, I have never knowingly agreed

that any person other than the Owner and Holder in Due Course

of my Note would have the right to foreclose my Property

pursuant to the Security Instrument I gave as collateral for my

Note. Defendants never addressed or disclosed the possibility

that, by signing its Security Instrument form, I would be

authorizing a person not entitled to enforce my Note, and notowed anything by me pursuant to my Note, to take my home.

That was never the intent or approved purpose of the Security




Instrument. Any assertion to the contrary by Defendants will be

mistake or fraud, as the facts to be revealed in this lawsuit will

demonstrate, and inconsistent of any agreement I intended to

make with the undisclosed “Lender ”.

173.Defendants Wells and Ike prepared, provided, and required that

I use the forms which became my purported Note and Security

Instrument. Any ambiguity or vagueness within either

document must be construed against Defendants Ike and Wells

and its successors in order that my rights under those

agreements be properly understood and applied.

174.Upon information and belief, I deny the power of sale pursuant

to the Security Instrument was ever initiated by action of the

Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note.

175.Plaintiff denies that the original trustee ever resigned or was

replaced.

176.Plaintiff denies that any substitute trustee ever became the

successor to the original trustee.

177.Plaintiff denies that any Defendant has, in good faith or

otherwise, ever acquired the right to sell the subject property or

seek possession thereof.

178. Plaintiff denies that Defendant Wells was in fact the lender or

creditor when the loan was originated.

179. Plaintiff denies that the Deed of Trust, Promissory note and

other closing documents accurately memorialized the closing of

the loan between Plaintiff and Defendants John Does 1-1000

who are now known to be unidentified investors who advanced

money to Defendant Wells which acted as a mortgage broker




180.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee has never been

instructed by the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my Note

to initiate a foreclosure.

181.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee does not know

the identity of the Owner and Holder in Due Course of my

Note, and, therefore, does not know the person authorized to

issue instructions regarding the Security Instrument.

182.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee doesn’t use

internal policies or procedures that would permit it to determine

whether the person engaging it to initiate the foreclosure

process under my Security Instrument actually is the Owner

and Holder in Due Course of my Note or a duly appointed

servant of that Owner.

183.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee initiated these

foreclosure procedures of its own volition in violation of the

express terms of my Security Instrument and Tennessee

foreclosure law.

184.Upon information and belief, the alleged trustee knows that

public recording of documents does not ensure that the content

is accurate, truthful or authorized by law. Accordingly, I deny

that the alleged trustee acted, or is acting, in good faith to the

extent it initiated and continues to conduct this foreclosure

process alleging reliance on the fact that it can point to one or

more documents which have been publicly recorded.

185.Upon information and belief, Defendant Wells lacks standing

in this case, having no economic or beneficial interest in my

Note, and no complete dominion over it, including no right to

enforce my Note pursuant to the UCC and TCA Title 47.




186.Even though Defendant Wells is listed as the Lender on the

alleged Promissory Note, upon information and belief, my Note

was sold one or more times to others and Defendant Wells no

longer owns or has full dominion over my Note, including no

right to enforce my Note per the UCC and TCA Title 47.

187.Tennessee law requires: (1) that original notes must be kept,

(2) that original notes must returned to the borrower upon

payment in full, (3) that original notes must be produced when

the lender or its representative has demanded payment and the

borrower requests to see proof of an original note’s

existence, and (4) that a lender’s representative show proof of authority to demand payment when the borrower requests

the lender’s representative to do so.

188.Moreover, in the event a mortgage lender or its representative

cannot prove that a Tennessee mortgage original note still

exists, Tennessee law requires proof of certain things before a

lost note will be deemed enforceable, just as the jurisdictions requiring judicial foreclosures do; and

furthermore, Tennessee courts also require compliance with

the Tennessee laws of trusts, assignments, and agency as they

pertain to real estate cases.

189.Defendants, and all of them, are included in each and all of

Plaintiff’s allegations as and where applicable.

PETITION FOR VERIFICATION OF DEBT AND

PROOF OF LOSS

(For Defendants Wells, FHLMC, and Does)

190.Plaintiff hereby incorporates and alleges all of the facts statedhearin above, as though fully set forth at length hearin




191.Plaintiff requests verification from Defendants Wells,

FHLMC, and Does pursuant to TCA Title 47 in order to

establish the true “lender” that can show the alleged amount of

the alleged debt and “proof of loss” trough GAAP, check and

wire transfers.

192.Plaintiff requests that Defendants produce The True Original

Wet Ink Signature Promissory Note signed by Defendants

Wells and FHLMC and the contracts involved in the transfer

and sale of Plaintiffs note to any entity in association to the

loan pursuant to TCA Title 47 and the UCC.

193.Defendant Wells and FHLMC to stipulate via affidavit that

they are in fact a Creditor in this loan/security instrument. ACreditor needs to show true double entry accounting debits of

the loss as a result of the issuance of the loan to Plaintiff

according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

(GAAP).

194.Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendant Wells has sold his

Promissory Note to FHLMC and FHLMC has sold it under a

"mortgage backed securities instrument" to investors/Does

under a pooling of interest who have purchased “stocks”.

195.If Defendants cannot produce proof of claim and proof of loss,

they have no standing in this or any future controversy.

196.If Defendants are unable to produce proof of claim and proof of

loss, Plaintiff prays the court to order the Defendants to stop allaction against Plaintiff and grant rightful remedies due to

Plaintiff.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AS TO

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF PLAINTIFFS

PROMISSORY NOTE(Regarding Defendants Wells, FHLMC, Does and the Holder in

Due Course with Rights to Enforce the “Note”)




197.Plaintiff hereby incorporates and alleges all of the facts stated

herein above, as though fully set forth at length herein.

198.Declaratory Judgment from the court is requested by Plaintiff

to declare if Wells or FHLMC or Does 1-1000 are the Owner

and legal holder in due course of the Plaintiffs Promissory Notewith the rights of the holder to enforce Plaintiffs DOT with any

action regarding Plaintiffs property at 3624 Lascassas Pike,

Murfreesboro, TN., 37130 (Property) pursuant to the Tennessee

version of the UCC (TCA Title 47).

199.Defendant Wilson alleges that Defendant Wells has initiated

foreclosure proceedings on the Plaintiff with regards to the

Property in its Notice of Trustee Sale.

200.Plaintiff is threatened with the loss of his residence, income,

continued emotional distress and place of business if Wells is

allowed to act as the holder in due course with the right to

foreclose on Plaintiffs property.

201.Defendants have scheduled the sale of plaintiff’s property.

202.There is a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for the

declaration sought in that the Plaintiffs residence and place of

business and only means of supporting his family is threatened

with a foreclosure sale and eviction.

203.The Courts declaration deals with present ascertainable facts

regarding the present controversy regarding Defendant Wellsrights to enforce provisions pertaining to Plaintiffs promissory

note and Deed of Trust pursuant to the UCC and TCA Title 47

and USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101 § 2071.

204.If Defendant Wells cannot produce proof of claim in the form

of the true original wet ink promissory note and proof of the

right to enforce said note, they have no standing in this or any

future controversy and the right of the Plaintiff to retain his property with all the privileges, power and immunity against

the threat of Wells foreclosure will thereby be affirmed.




205.If Defendant Wells is permitted to proceed without proof of the

legal standing to do so by production of the note and the right

to enforce said note they will be permitted to convert the

Plaintiffs property and monies.

206.Plaintiff has an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interestin Defendant Wells claiming to be agent of the holder in due

course of Plaintiffs note. He is threatened with the loss of his

business and residence and means of his families support.

207.Plaintiff denies Defendant Wells is the Owner and Holder in

due course or the agent of the Holder with the rights and

privileges due the Holder.

208.TCA Title 47 requires Wells to produce the true originalnegotiable note in court when seeking recovery upon it or whenasked as well as the proof of loss and right to enforce the“note”.

209.This requirement is drawn from TCA 47-3-301 and TCA 47-3-308 (b). TCA 47-3-301 (i) requires that a party claiming to be a

"holder" of a note (as Wells claims to be here), be in possessionof the note in order to be entitled to enforce it. When thatenforcement right is asserted in a court proceeding, Wells mustthen produce the true note in court.

210.The Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act provides that:

any person interested under a deed, will, written

contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected

by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise,

may have determined any question of construction or

validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance,

contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or

other legal relations there under .

211.If Defendants are unable to produce proof of claim as Owner or Holder in due course or Agent of the Owner or Holder in due

course with the rights of the holder of the original promissory




note, Plaintiff prays the court to make a declaratory judgment

to that effect and order the Defendants to stop all action against

Plaintiff and grant rightful remedies due to Plaintiff.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGEMENT REGARDING APPOINTMENT

OF DEFENDANT WILSON AS SUCCESSOR

TRUSTEE

(RE: Defendant Wilson Trustee)




to declare if Defendant Wilson has been legally appointed and

therefore has legal standing to act as Successor Trustee to

Plaintiffs DOT pertaining to Plaintiffs property at 3624

Lascassas Pike, Murfreesboro, TN., 37130 (Property).


to declare if Defendant Wilson has adhered to Tennessee

statutes for the notice requirements to legally initiate a

foreclosure action.

215.Defendant Wilson has initiated foreclosure proceedings on the

Plaintiff with regards to the Property.

216.Plaintiff is threatened with the loss of his residence and place of

business if Defendant Wilson is found to be the properlyappointed successor trustee to Plaintiffs DOT with the power of

sale provisions stipulated therein.

217.Defendant Wilson has threatened the sale of plaintiff’s

property.

218.There is a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for the

declaration sought.




219.The Courts declaration deals with present ascertainable facts

regarding the present controversy regarding Defendant Wilsons

appointment of successor trustee document filed in the

Rutherford County Tennessee Property Records.

220.If Defendant Wilson has not been properly appointed as

successor trustee they have not adhered to Tennessee statutes

for the notice requirements to legally initiate a foreclosure

action.

221.If Defendant Wilson is permitted to proceed without proof of

the legal standing to do so by declaration of the court

concerning the validity of the Appointment of successor Trustee Document filed by Wilson in the Rutherford County

Property Records they will be permitted to convert the

Plaintiffs property and monies.

222.Plaintiff has an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest

in Defendant Wilson claiming to be the legally appointed

successor trustee to plaintiffs DOT securing plaintiffs property.

223.Plaintiff denies Defendant Wilson is a legally appointed

successor trustee to his DOT.

224.By information and belief the AST filed in the Rutherford

County Property records on the surface looks genuine enough

to qualify as having the apparent ability to fool most people.

225.This AST document significantly affects the Plaintiffs rights

concerning his property concerning the foreclosure of his

property and the threatened loss of his residence and business

location.

226.The AST document allegedly gives Defendant Wilson the legal

right to conduct a foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs real property

and to execute the legal power of sale provisions outlined in theDOT.




227.By information and belief Defendant Wilson intended that the

Plaintiff and the Rutherford County Clerk and the Tennessee

Court regard the false AST as being genuine.

228.As a result of Defendant Wilsons admitted “preparation” of the

alleged Forgery concerning their Appointment of Successor Trustee, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in

an amount to be determined at trial.

229.The Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act provides that:

any person interested under a deed, will, written

contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or

whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected

by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise,may have determined any question of construction or

validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance,

contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or

other legal relations there under .

230.Plaintiff requests that the court make a declaratory judgment

that Defendant Wilson has not been legally/properly appointed

as successor trustee to the Plaintiffs DOT; that Defendant

Wilson has not adhered to proper foreclosure statutes pertaining

to notice of foreclosure and publication of foreclosure as well

as to their role in preparing and filing fraudulent documents

(the AST) in the Rutherford County Property Records. And to

that effect and order the Defendant to stop all action against

Plaintiff and grant rightful remedies due to Plaintiff.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT TO

QUIET TITLE TO PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY

(Against all Defendants)

231. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and alleges all of the facts stated


232.Plaintiff is and at all times herein mentioned the owner and/or entitled to possession of the property located at 3624

Lascassas Pike, Murfreesboro, TN., 37130.




233.The basis of Plaintiffs title is a continuing possession of said

Property and continued interest through a UCC lien on the

“Note”(exhibit M) and a QUITCLAIM DEED (Exhibit T)

granting the above-described property in fee simple to the

David B. Starkey Revocable Living Trust and to Plaintiff DavidB. Starkey.

234.The alleged note and deed of trust have been separated. The

Note has been sold to Defendant FHLMC and subsequently to

investors in Mortgage Backed Securites (Defendants Does 1-

1000) and is therefore owned by shareholders of stocks. The

alleged Deed of Trust that is recorded in the Rutherford

County Property Records claims Wells Fargo as the “lender”/“beneficiary”/ “owner”. This is fraudulent and a cloud on

Plaintiffs Deed of Trust.

235.Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and

belief alleges that Defendants and DOES 1-1000 and all persons

claiming, by, through, or under such person, all persons

unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien,

or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse toPlaintiffs' title thereto, claim an interest adverse to Plaintiff in

the above-described property as adverse interest the holder of a

deed of trust against the subject property.

236.A fraudulent DOT was recorded on June 11, 2007 in the

Official Records of the County of Rutherford, State of

Tennessee as document number 1501665. Some of the

Defendants and unknown defendants, specifically those

additionally designated as DOES1- 1000, inclusive claim

interests in the property adverse to Plaintiffs as assignees and

successors of Defendants.

237.Defendants Wells and Wilson have presented alleged “true and

exact” copies of Plaintiffs Promissory Note and DOT that

allude to a transaction that identifies Defendant Wells as the“lender” while in fact Defendant Wells was not the “lender”.

Therefore the DOT is invalid due to the fact that it secures a

fraudulent “Note”.




238.By information and belief Defendant Wells has caused to be

filed in the Rutherford County Property records a false Deed of

Trust document alleging them to be the lender of proceeds

secured by plaintiff’s property at 3624 Lascassas Pike,

Murfreesboro, TN., 37130.

239.By information and belief Defendant FHLMC has claimed

ownership of Plaintiffs Promissory note and Deed of Trust (See

Exhibits D & E).

240.By information and belief Defendant FHLMC has placed

Plaintiffs Note into a pool of MBS where “investors”

(Defendants Does 1-1000) have purchased Plaintiffs

Promissory Note and therefore his DOT.

241.Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that

Defendants, and each of them, claim an interest in the

property adverse to plaintiff herein. However, the claim of

said Defendants are without any right whatsoever, and said

Defendants have no legal or equitable right, claim, or interest

in said property.

242.Regarding Plaintiffs’ Promissory Note, Plaintiff would show

that the Promissory Note is not presumed to be enforceable,

and that the Defendants have the minimum burden of

proving its enforceability under T.C.A. § 47-3-501 and

perhaps have the greater burden of proving its enforceability

under T.C.A. § 47-3-309 if the note is missing.

243.Defendant Wells has admitted in writing that Wells has sold

Plaintiffs’ note, but claims it still possesses the note, and still

claims it has the right to make demand for payment under said

note as the servicer for the holder of the note.

244.Though Plaintiffs have made repeated demands on Defendant

Wells to “exhibit” the Promissory Note, and to present Plaintiff

with reasonable evidence that Wells has the authority to makedemands upon the Plaintiff if it does not own the note, both

being required by T.C.A. § 47-3-501(b)(2), Defendant

Wells continually refuses to comply.




245.Plaintiff would show that because Defendant Wells refuses to

comply with T.C.A. § 47- 3-501(b)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to

the relief provided to them pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-3-

501(b)(3). They therefore request that this court enter an order

determining that Plaintiff can and has refused to make

payment on the note without dishonor, until such time asDefendant Wells exhibits the note as required by the statute

and shows reasonable evidence it possesses the authority to

make demand on the note owner’s behalf.

246.Moreover, should Defendant Wells be unable to exhibit the

original Promissory Note as required by T.C.A. § 47-3-

501(b)(2), because the first mortgage note has been lost or

destroyed, Plaintiffs would again demand that before DefendantWells be permitted to make further demand for payment upon

the Plaintiff, that Defendant Wells first prove that the note is

enforceable under T.C.A. § 47-3-309(a) and give Plaintiff

adequate protection under T.C.A. § 47-3-309(b) before they

are permitted to show authority to demand payment; and,

Plaintiffs’ aver it is Defendant Wells burden to do so.

247.Should Defendant Wells be unable to exhibit the Promissory Note but nevertheless be able to meet its burden of proving the

enforceability of the Promissory Note under T.C.A. § 47-3-

309(a), and should Defendant Wells be able to meet its burden

of showing the authority to continue to demand payment of the

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs still request the court to enter an order that

Plaintiffs be given adequate protection against any loss

Plaintiffs might have by reason of a claim of another person in

accordance with T.C.A. § 47-3-309(b).

248.Should Defendant Wells fail to produce the true original

Promissory Note for Plaintiffs’ inspection, or should

Defendant Wells fail to meet its burden of proving the

enforceability of the Promissory Note, or should it fail to meet

its burden of proving it has the authority to demand payment

of the Plaintiff on said note, or should it fail to give any

adequate protection the court requires, the Plaintiffs request this

court issue a cease and desist order to Defendant Wells from

further demanding payment of Plaintiffs on said note.




249.Plaintiff therefore seeks a declaration that the title to the

subject property is vested in plaintiff alone and that the

defendants herein, and each of them, be declared to have no

estate, right, title or interest in the subject property and that

said defendants, and each of them, be forever enjoined fromasserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject

property adverse to plaintiff herein.

250.WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants

and each of them, as follows:

224.1- For an order compelling said Defendants, and

each of them, to transfer legal title and possession of the

subject property to Plaintiff herein

224.2- For a declaration and determination that Plaintiff

is the rightful holder of title to the property and that

Defendants herein, and each of them, be declared to have

no estate, right, title or interest in said property.

224.3- For a judgment forever enjoining said defendants,

and each of them, from claiming any estate, right, title or

interest in the subject property

224.4- For such other and further relief as the court may

deem proper

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Asserted against all Defendants)



252.The Promissory Note and Deed of Trust in this action was

obtained by fraud. Defendant Ike represented to Plaintiff that

Defendant Wells was loaning its money to fund the purchase of




Plaintiffs property when in fact Defendant Wells did not “loan”

any of its money but transferred funds from investors in

Mortgage Backed Securities to “fund” the “loan”.

253.Defendant Ike, acting as Defendant Wells agent in purported

“loan” acted fraudulently from Plaintiffs first encounter sometime around April of 2007 through the alleged loan

closing and recording of the alleged DOT sometime in June of

2007. His actions consisted of falsifying and submitting loan

applications and fraudulently representing Defendant Wells as

a “lender” in the “loan” transaction and preparing all

documentation/paperwork regarding said “loan”.

254.By information and belief Defendant Wells was not and is notthe “lender” in any transaction regarding the Plaintiffs

Promissory Note or Deed of Trust and has no right to initiate

any power of sale or any other clause on the Plaintiffs Deed of

Trust which was obtained through fraud.

255.By information and belief there has been a total failure of

consideration from Defendant Wells with regard to Plaintiffs

Promissory Note and Deed of Trust. Defendant Wells was notthe lender in the transaction documented by Plaintiffs

Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

256.By information and belief the alleged debt secured by Plaintiffs

Deed of Trust has been fully paid when it was purchased by

FHLMC and also through subsequent Credit Default Swaps,

Insurance Proceeds, TARP funds and other third party

payments to be proved at trial.

257.This is an action for temporary and permanent injunctive relief

to cease and halt all foreclosure activity by the Defendants; for

temporary, preliminary injunctive relief during the pendency of

this litigation and, upon prevailing on the merits, for permanent

injunctive relief.

258.Plaintiff has a clear legal right to seek temporary and

permanent injunctive relief as his interest in monies and real

property is being jeopardized by the actions of the Defendants.




259.Plaintiffs Property not only serves as his residence but it is also

his place of business.

260.If temporary relief is not granted to Plaintiff he will be faced

with the loss of all income and means to support his family.

261.If injunctive relief is not granted to Plaintiff he will be faced

with the loss of medical equipment and medical records

covered under the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

262.Plaintiff is faced with the imminent likelihood of irreparable

harm if the injunctive relief order is not issued. Among theimminent likelihood of irreparable harm Plaintiff is faced with

if the Injunctive Relief order is not granted is:

(A) Going out of business because the subject property is

where the Plaintiff operates his place of business, see Sisay v.

Smith, 2009 WL 361414 at *17 (6th Cir. 2009);

(B) Financial ruin if Defendant Wells is allowed to forecloseon the subject property and evict Plaintiff from his place of

business. see Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar

Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir. 1995);

(C) Competitive losses because the plaintiff will not be able to

operate his business and compete with surrounding

Chiropractic Physicians. see Basicomputer Corp., 973 F.2d at

511-12; and

(D) Interference with customer relationships and the loss of

goodwill with Plaintiffs patients due to the loss of a place to

administer care to said patients and fulfill obligations to those

patients who rely on Plaintiff for their care.

263.Defendants concerted and well-entrenched pattern of criminal

activity specifically engaging to wrongfully and through

fraudulent means take possession, custody, and control of

certain monies and real property of the Plaintiff will cause




Plaintiff the loss of his property and place of business and only

means of support.

264.Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm

arising out of the loss of his unique residential real property and

place of business caused by the actions and conduct of theDefendants as set forth and identified hereinabove, and no

adequate remedy at law to compel the turnover of the Plaintiffs’

property if wrongfully misappropriated by the Defendants as

identified hereinabove.

265.Any alleged harm to the Defendants, which consist of one of

the largest investment banks in the world and its related

servicing entity, with the granting of this relief is greatly andsubstantially outweighed by the actual and irreparable harm to

Plaintiff in the event that the relief requested herein is not

granted.

266.The granting of the relief requested herein is in the public

interest, as the consuming public of homeowners, including the

Plaintiff, has been, is being, and will continue to be harmed by

the fraudulent conduct of the Defendants (see Exhibits KK andLL).

267.Granting temporary relief will not contravene any substantial

public interest. It will not affect the legitimate interests of any

disinterested person.

268.Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success based on the

allegations set forth above and below. The facts alleged by

Plaintiff are not speculative but supported by numerous law

suits throughout the country and by all fifty State Attorney

Generals as well as documentation filed in the public property

records of Rutherford County Tennessee and elsewhere.

269.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court immediately

grant the relief requested herein and immediately enter an

Order for Temporary Injunctive Relief which commands that

all foreclosure activity being engaged in by the Defendants be

immediately enjoined for the pendency of this litigation




through trial and any appeal(s), and that permanent injunction

forever barring the Defendants from engaging in any illegal or

unlawful foreclosure activity be entered thereafter upon

Plaintiffs demonstration of the ultimate facts alleged above by a

preponderance of the admissible evidence.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Asserted against all Defendants)

270.Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and allege all of the facts statedherein above, as though fully set forth at length herein.

271.To maintain the status quo between the parties while the matter

is pending, Plaintiff seeks an order from the court to retain title

to the subject real property and to remain in actual possession

of the premises, by enjoining the Defendants and their agents

from seeking to evict the Plaintiff from his home and place of

business.

272.Based on the factual allegations alleged herein, the Plaintiff has

a meritorious case against the defendants, and is likely to

prevail at trial based on those factual allegations and proof of

sustained damages, and they would suffer severe hardship if

defendants are allowed to take action to foreclose and/or evict

the Plaintiff while this contractual dispute is pending.

273.Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks an order from the court upon motion

for a preliminary injunction to protect their interests in the

subject real properties which form the basis of this action, as

severe and irreparable harm will be suffered by the Plaintiff,

should he lose his home and place of business, which is not

only the basis for his claims against the defendants, but is also

unique and irreplaceable.




THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

LACK OF STANDING(Asserted Against Defendants Wells and FHLMC)


above, as though fully set forth at length herein.

275.Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order declaring that

Defendant Wells lacks standing to foreclose on Plaintiff’s

residence or to enforce any provisions regarding Plaintiff’s

Deed of Trust.

276.Defendant does not have standing to seek foreclosure on

Plaintiffs residence and office and real property.

277.Defendants have failed to provide foundation, admissible

evidence or certified documentation that supports its assertion

of standing or authority to act as Holder in Due Course or as

“Servicer” appointed by a Holder in Due Course of Plaintiffs

Promissory Note pursuant to TCA § 47-3-501(b) (2).

278.Plaintiff hereby demands, pursuant to TCA § 47-3-501(b)(2)

that Defendant present and exhibit the original wet ink

promissory note that relates to the Plaintiffs property for this

Court’s inspection and present to this Court reasonable

evidence of their authority to exhibit and therefore enforce the

instrument.

279.If Defendant refuses to present the instrument to this Courtand its authority to enforce it then Defendant is in violation of

TCA § 47-3-501 and therefore has no standing in this case.

280.Defendant has not demonstrated that it is the holder in due

course of Plaintiffs Promissory Note or that it is the agent of

the holder in due course.

281.Plaintiff moves this Court to have Defendant stipulate andadmit on and for the record whether or not they are the

creditor and whether or not they are the holder in due course




or if they contend that they are acting on authority of the

Holder in Due Course with the authority to enforce any clause

on Plaintiffs DOT or Promissory Note.

282.If Defendant refuses to admit as to whether they are or are not

the creditor and/or the holder in due course Plaintiff requeststhat the defendant be considered in contempt of court.

283.There is no evidence that Defendant Wells has been damaged.

284.There is no evidence of the existence or the identity of a true

holder in due course.

285.The wrong party is named as the lender on the alleged note

and the alleged deed of trust recorded in the RutherfordCounty Property records further clouding title to Plaintiffs

property.

286.The alleged note has allegedly been transferred to FHLMC.

287.FHLMC has allegedly deposited said note in a securitization

trust.

288.By transferring ownership and holding of the mortgage

promissory note to certificate holders of a publicly traded

security, the transfer negated the ability of the alleged lender,

trustee or servicing agent to act as the owner or holder of the

promissory note or its agent.

289.A DOT cannot be enforced on behalf of the owner and holder of a Promissory Note who does not actually own or hold the

Promissory Note.

290.There is a difference between what is required to enforce a

note and what is required to enforce a deed of trust in

foreclosure.

291.The alleged note and deed of trust have been separated. The Note has been sold to FHLMC and subsequently to investors

in Mortgage Backed Securities and is therefore owned by




shareholders in stocks. The alleged Deed of Trust that is

Wells Fargo as the “lender”/ “beneficiary”/ “owner”. This is

fraudulent and a cloud on Plaintiffs Deed of Trust.

292.The promissory note as a note remains enforceable if it hasnot been paid, but the deed of trust does not.

293.The note is no longer secured by the Property.

294.Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks an order from the court declaring

that the Defendants lack standing to enforce any provision on

the Plaintiffs DOT or to foreclose on the Plaintiffs real

property.

295.Severe and irreparable harm through the loss of patients, the

loss of reputation, the loss of income, emotional distress and

family depression and anxiety will be suffered by the Plaintiff

and his family, should he lose his home and place of business,

which is not only the basis for his claims against the

defendants, but is also unique and irreplaceable.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCOMMON LAW FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

(Asserted Against Defendants Ike and Wells)



297.A special relationship existed between the Plaintiff andDefendant Ike who was acting as agent for Defendant Wells;where Plaintiff relied on the representations made by DefendantIke to council and inform him.

298.Defendant Ike exercised his dominion and influence over

Plaintiff due to his superior knowledge to that of the Plaintiff,and his access to material facts that were not accessible to thePlaintiff.




299.Defendant Ike knew that Plaintiff was placing special trust inhim to counsel and inform him of matters of which DefendantIke had superior knowledge to that of Plaintiff and his access tomaterial facts that were not accessible to Plaintiff.

300.Defendant Wells knew that a special trust was given byPlaintiff to Defendant Ike as the agent of Defendant Wells dueto Defendants superior knowledge and experience and specialknowledge of material facts not available to Plaintiff.

301.Plaintiff reasonably relied to Plaintiff ’s detriment upon the

representations and good faith estimates and the duty of

Defendants Ike and Wells to act within their duties as

fiduciaries and representatives of the Plaintiff in executing a

loan that was vastly different from the loan the Plaintiff was promised or reasonably believed to be the case.

302.At all times and places through digital, written, or spokenconversation Defendants’ intent and subsequent action was torepresent Defendant Wells as the “lender ” in the purported“loan transaction”. These were intentional misrepresentationsof a material fact that Defendants knew was false.

303.The representation that Defendant Wells was the “lender” wasfalse. Defendant Wells was not the lender and did not use itsfunds to fund any loan to Plaintiff.

304.Defendant Wells aided by representations of its agentDefendant Ike was acting as a nominee for an undisclosed partyin a securitization scheme.

305.The representations of Defendants were material to Plaintiffs’decision to enter into the contract, and to sign the agreement.

306.At the time Defendants Wells and Ike made the representationsDefendants knew the representations were false andmisleading.

307.Defendant’s representations were made with the intent todeceive Plaintiff.

308.Defendants meant for Plaintiff to rely on the representation thatit was lending Wells funds to purchase his home.




309.Plaintiff did not know the representations of Defendant Ike andWells were misleading or false.

310.Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations of DefendantsIke and Wells.

311.Plaintiff’s reliance on the representations of Defendant Ike andWells which is one of the largest financial institutions in theworld with superior knowledge and experience in such matterswas fully justified.

312.At all times relevant, Defendants possessed superior knowledgeto that of the Plaintiff, and further had access to material facts

that were not accessible to the Plaintiff regarding their nefarious scheme.

313.Plaintiff believed he was making a sound investment based onDefendant’s inflated appraisal and the representation that hecould re-finance in the future and that Defendant Wells was the“lender” in the transaction.

314. Plaintiff has suffered economic, emotional and other damage as

a result of his reliance on Defendants Ike and Wells fraudulentmisrepresentations; among which are: loss of work and incomefrom lost work, the clouding/slander of title to Plaintiffs

property, not knowing the true lender or true owner that canissue satisfaction of the alleged debt or offer a loan modificationand severe emotional strain upon Plaintiff and Plaintiffsrelations with his wife and children and the cost of this action.

315.Defendant Wells did not use Defendant’s own money to fundthe “loan” and refuses to provide Plaintiff with an accountingof the alleged “loan” transaction despite multiple QualifiedWritten Requests.

316.Upon information and belief Defendant Wells used moneyfrom an undisclosed source to fund the “loan” and was not the“lender” as fraudulently represented by Defendant Ike andPlaintiffs Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.

317.Defendants Ike and Wells have unclean hands.




318.Plaintiff would not have issued the promissory note toDefendant Wells at the request of Defendant Ike if he hadknown the true facts of the transaction.

319.Defendants made false and misleading representations andremained silent when they should have spoken.

320.Defendants falsely identified Defendant Wells as the lender inthe closing documents.

321.The alleged note falsely identifies Defendant Wells as thelender.

322.The DOT falsely identifies Defendant Wells as the lender.

323.Defendant Wells was not the lender (the source of the money) but merely the nominee for an undisclosed principal.

324.Defendants concealed, refused and failed to disclose or explainor account for its relationship with and among the varioussecuritization parties, remaining silent on the subject, therebydenying and concealing the very existence of the parties, theagreements among them, and the money that changed hands

despite numerous written requests by Plaintiff to obtain saiddisclosures.

325.Defendants made false and misleading representations andremained silent when they should have spoken:

326.Defendants represented that they followed the GenerallyAccepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) required for exchanging funds for a promissory note.

327.Wells did not follow GAAP.

328.As a result of the Defendants fraudulent inducement concerningthis contract, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income from work,the cost of bringing this action, loss of reputation, loss of

patients, emotional damages to himself and his family as wellas general and special damages in an amount to be determined

at trial.




FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION




330.Plaintiff relied upon Defendants to guide him through the

process of getting a home mortgage loan. This reliance began

with Plaintiffs first contact with Defendant Ike in April of

2007. Plaintiff answered Defendants internet solicitation to

Plaintiff requesting that he apply for a home loan from

Defendant Wells where Defendant Wells was presented as the

“lender”.

331.Defendant Ike and Defendant Wells falsely represented

Defendant Wells as the “lender” of its funds to Plaintiff for a

home loan beginning from Defendants first contact with

Plaintiff due to Defendant Ike’s internet solicitation (April

2007), through the application process up to the “loan” closing

(June 2007). These false representations by Defendants were

made over the internet, phone and mail and continue to this day by Defendant Wells.

332.A special relationship existed between the Plaintiff andDefendant Ike who was acting as agent for Defendant Wells;where Plaintiff relied on the representations made by DefendantIke to council and inform him. This special relationship withDefendant Ike was warranted due to Defendants superior

knowledge to that of the Plaintiff, and his access to materialfacts that were not accessible to the Plaintiff regarding themortgage transaction.

333.The existence of that special relationship imposed uponDefendant Ike as agent for Defendant Wells a duty to fully andaccurately disclose all pertinent information pertaining to thehome loan allegedly made to Plaintiff.

334.That duty included, but was not limited to, true and correctinformation pertaining to the true “lender” and subsequentsecuritization of his note.




335.Defendant Ikes Duty was to inform Plaintiff of the true sourceof funds for his “loan” and the existence of Credit DefaultSwaps (CDS), Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), defaultinsurance and other third party payments.

336.Defendant Wells also had a duty to inform Plaintiff that it hasno legal right to foreclose upon Plaintiffs mortgage since his

promissory note became the basis for a Mortgage BackedSecurity (MBS) pool and ownership of the “Note” and DOThave been transferred to other owners, stockholders, trusteesand “servicers”.

337.Defendants Ike and Wells failed to disclose this material

information to the Plaintiff and omitted critical elements fromany disclosures that were made.

338.Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the material misrepresentations

of Defendants Ike and Wells to his detriment in choosing to

proceed with the “loan”.

339. Plaintiff has suffered economic, emotional and other damage as

a result of his reliance on Defendants Ike and Wells fraudulentmisrepresentations; among which are: loss of work and incomefrom lost work, the clouding/slander of title to Plaintiffs

property, not knowing the true lender or true owner that canissue satisfaction of the alleged debt or offer a loan modificationand severe emotional strain upon Plaintiff and Plaintiffsrelations with his wife and children and the cost of this action.

340.As a result of Defendants Ike and Wells materialmisrepresentations concerning this contract, Plaintiff hassuffered general and special damages in an amount to bedetermined at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNJUST ENRICHMENT


341.All of the above Paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby

incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.




342.The Promissory Note and DOT/contract regarding Plaintiffs

property are invalid due to the fraudulent actions of Defendants

that are more fully alleged above. Therefore there never has

been a valid agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants.

343.Plaintiff denies the alleged Promissory Note and DOT.

344.Plaintiff denies that Defendant Wells is the true “servicer” of

Plaintiffs Promissory Note or Deed of Trust with any

appointment or contract with the Holder in Due Course of

Plaintiffs Promissory Note.

345.Through their conduct as described herein, Defendant Wells

was unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff by improperlyaccepting his down payment, assorted fees and all mortgage

payments under false pretenses (acting as the lender or

“servicer” duly appointed by the “lender”, “owner” or Holder

in Due Course of Plaintiffs Promissory Note). And by

ultimately attempting to foreclose upon the home and business

of the Plaintiff without legal authority to do so.

346.By information and belief Defendant Wells was also unjustlyenriched through the fraudulent collection of Credit Default

Swaps, Mortgage Insurance and TARP funds pertaining to

Plaintiffs Promissory Note and DOT.

347.To permit Defendant Wells to retain their unjust gains would be

against equity and good conscience, and would ratify the illegal

actions taken by the Defendant to the detriment of the Plaintiff

and the true “lender” and holder in due course.

348.Here, in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of the Defendant,

Defendant should be ordered to pay back to Plaintiff any and

all monies unjustly received from him and taking into account

proceeds from improperly accepted mortgage payments and the

unjust securitization of Plaintiffs Promissory Note and its sale

to stockholders of MBS’s. The unjust enrichment of Defendant

Wells includes but is not limited to default insurance policies,

CDS’s, Federal Bailouts or TARP monies, any and all third

party payments.




349.By their wrongful acts and omissions, Defendant Wells and

their agents have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the

Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff has been unjustly deprived.

350.By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks restitution from theDefendants, and an order of this Court disgorging all profits,

benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Defendants

from their wrongful conduct.

351.As a result of Defendants unjust enrichment concerning this

contract, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in

an amount to be determined at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FRAUD IN THE CONVEYANCE)


352.Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.

353.Defendants Ike and Wells purportedly assigned Plaintiffs DOT,

together with Plaintiffs Promissory Note to Defendant FHLMC

on or about June 7, 2007.

354.Defendant Ike fraudulently acted and conspired with Defendant

Wells to record a public document which would assign property

rights without the right and privilege to do so, and in doing so

knowingly conspired without the right and privilege to do so as

beneficiary under the DOT, as the note had already been

assigned to FHLMC.

355.Upon information and belief, Plaintiff therefore alleges that

Defendant Wells did not pay any consideration for the

"Promissory Note". Assuming Arguendo that if FHLMC

purchased the "Promissory Note" in 2007 and the investors in

FHLMC MBS’s paid Defendant Wells, such assignment would

constitute fraudulent conveyance.




356.All Defendants mentioned herein participated in the fraud by

processing falsified assignments of the DOT.

357.Defendant Wells falsely represented to Plaintiff that they

received valid assignment of the Deed of Trust and enforceable

endorsement of the Promissory Note to procure payments from

Plaintiff that they were not entitled to receive.

358.The representations made by said Defendant was in fact false.

The true facts were that Defendant Wells could not act to

assign the DOT. In fact, Defendant Wells had no interest in thePromissory Note and could not assign or enforce the

Promissory Note.

359.Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by

Defendant Ike and Wells and at the time Plaintiff took the

actions alleged herein, was ignorant of the falsity of the

Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. In

reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to make payments to Defendant Wells when they were not entitled to

such money.

360.The aforementioned conducts of the Defendants were

intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of

material fact known to the Defendants with the intention on the

part of the Defendants of thereby depriving the Plaintiffs of

property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was

despicable conduct that subjected the Plaintiff to a cruel and

unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs' rights,

so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

361.As a result of Defendants fraud in the conveyance concerning

this contract, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages

in an amount to be determined at trial.




EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(Against Defendant Wilson)

362.All of the above Paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby

incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

363.By information and belief a trustee under a deed of trust owes

fiduciary duties both to the lender and to the borrower [Murray

v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 953 A. 2d 308 (D.C. 2008)].

364.By information and belief (a fiduciary relationship exists

between the trustee of a deed of trust and the debtor and

creditor: the trustee is considered to be the agent of both debtor and creditor and should perform the duties of the trust with

impartiality and integrity); Sloop v. London, 219 S.E.2d 502,

504, 505 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

365.Defendant and alleged Successor Trustee Wilson, has an

obligation not only to whom they perceive as the lender, but to

perform due diligence as to the status of the note and the true

owner of the note and the true party in interest who might beentitled to enforce the note or mortgage.

366.The DOT is a three party instrument by definition - the trustor,

beneficiary, and the trustee.

367.There is no provision in a deed of trust which allows the trustee

to abrogate his duties, which is what Defendant Wilson is

trying to do.

368.Defendant Wilson is not performing its obligations to the trust,

it is acting as an agent for Defendant Wells and not a trustee.

An agent may not foreclose.

369.Agents may not foreclose, only duly appointed trustees may.

370.The choice of words, i.e., 'trustee' over 'agent' in the alleged

DOT would make it clear it is dual, that is, a deed of trust

trustee owes a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower.




371.In Lewis v Jordan Investment, Inc., 725 A.2d 4955 (1999),

recognized the long-standing tenet that a trustee has a dual

fiduciary duty.

372."A trustee of deeds has the fiduciary obligation to comply withthe powers and duties of the trust instrument, as well as the

applicable statute under the Tennessee Code. Perry v. Virginia

Mortgage & Inv. Co., 412 A.2d 1194, 1197 (D.C. 1980)

(citations omitted).

373.The court has long recognized that trustees owe fiduciary duties

to both the Note holder and the Borrower. S&G Inv., Inc. v.

Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 164 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 270-71 n. 21, 505 F.2d 370, 377-78 n. 21 (1974)"

374.Defendant Wilson is acting as the 'agent' of the alleged lender

and not as a true alleged successor trustee.

375.Defendant Wilson as alleged successor trustee is acting at the

instance of an alleged lender with no real evidence that the

alleged lender has the right to command default / foreclosure.

376.Not only is Defendant Wilson the alleged successor trustee

breaching its fiduciary to the borrower, it is breaching its

fiduciary to the true beneficiary by not ascertaining that it is

acting at the behest of the proper party.

377.Defendant Wilson cannot be said to be acting within or meeting

its fiduciary when it is not demanding and being provided

evidence of the instigator's authority to foreclose.

378.The Plaintiff/borrower is an intended beneficiary of the terms

of the trust.

379.Defendant Wilson (alleged successor trustee) is not performing

its fiduciary - to anyone – when it institutes power of sale

proceedings with no evidence of the instigator's authority.




380.Plaintiff has repeatedly requested from Defendant Wilson and

Defendant Wells that the true holder of the promissory note

with authority to collect on the alleged default be identified.

381.Defendant Wilson and Defendant Wells have not identified the

true holder of the note nor have they validated any debt.

382.Plaintiff has filed notices of trustee obligation and affidavits of

forgery and debt validation letters in the Rutherford County

Property Records in an attempt to get Defendant Wilson to

perform its fiduciary duty.

383.By information and belief Defendant Wilson is attempting to

convert monies from the foreclosure of Plaintiffs property.

384.By information and belief Defendant Wilson will receive a

percentage of the proceeds from any foreclosure they may

perform on Plaintiffs Property.

385.Plaintiff has been injured by the actions of Defendant Wilson

and their Breaches of Fiduciary Duty through loss of work and

time spent on research to defend against Defendants actions.Much stress and anxiety due to Defendant Wilsons illegal

actions have led to emotional problems with Plaintiff and his

relations with his wife and children.

386.Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional duress due to the

illegal actions and lack of Fiduciary Duty performed by

Defendant Wilson the alleged successor trustee to plaintiffs

DOT.

387.Plaintiff has been forced to neglect his place of business located

in the subject property and has been faced with the loss of his

residence and place of business as well as income to support his

family.

388.Plaintiff has suffered deleterious effects to his credit rating and

reputation due to Defendant Wilson reporting to credit bureaus

and in the newspapers that he is in default and his property is in

Foreclosure.




389.Defendant has brought damage upon Plaintiff in the form of

disgrace by improperly listing his residence and place of

business in the newspapers for a trustee sale.

390.Plaintiff has been damaged emotionally and financially due toDefendant Wilsons actions and threatened foreclosure.

391.As a result of Defendant Wilsons Breach of Fiduciary Dutyconcerning the DOT, Plaintiff has suffered general and specialdamages in an amount to be determined at trial.

392.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against

Defendants, jointly and severally, and each of them as followsand as set forth in each cause of action to be determined at trial:

A. General and special damages according to

proof;

B. Punitive damages 'according to proof;

C. Statutory relief under the specific statutescited above;

D. Restitution damages according to proof;

E. Pre- and post-judgment interest; and

F. Attorney fees as authorized and provided for

by statute, contract or otherwise;

Authorization Representative All rights reserved UCC 1-308

--------------------------------------David B. Starkey




NOTARY

State of Tennessee

County of Rutherford

Subscribed and Affirmed and having been duly sworn to before me, a

Notary Public for the said county and state as above noted, do hereby

state that the living man, David B. Starkey, personally appeared before

me and signed the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official

seal this _______day of, May, 2013.

Notary Public Signature

My Commission Expires _____________________________ [SEAL]



SERVED VIA U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL TO:

IKE MOSES

3243 E. 35th

St.,

St. Louis MO 63376. Certified Mail #:_________________________

WILSON AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.

Edward D. Russell

Creekside Crossing III

8 Cadillac Drive, Suite 120

Brentwood, TN 37027 Certified Mail #: _______________________

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

C/O Atty. Brittany B. Simpson

Baker Donelson Center, Suite 800

211 Commerce Street

Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Certified Mail #:____________________

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION

8200 Jones Branch Dr.

Mc Lean, VA 22102-3110. Certified Mail #: _____________________

foreclosure fraud complaint vs wells fargo

Documents