Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 45

KingCast/Mortgage Movies
To see related videos of lawyers and Nationstar going ghetto,
Google Mortgage Movies + Innocent Healthcare Provider
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
MARTHA BRUNZOS

Plaintiff,

lO!b FEB -2
CASE

JUDGE WILLIAM E.

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE SERVICING,

p 12: ]]

..
..
1i,ll,, (. -. '.''.

SMitH 1SLA;'IQ

Ms. Brunzos has owned her home since 2001 and made 319
timely payments until she ran into trouble.

She got herself solvent and applied for HAMP and then the shit) show started, with Nationstar flat out lying t wice and every

Defendant.

lawyer around her acting in an unprofessional manner.

Take a look at this horror story.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND AND FACTSl
1.

The facts presented in this case have taken on qualities of a mythical story
whereby an innocent homeowner stands to lose her home and source of income
for the past fourteen years to the mortgage servicer on her loan who initially
offered help for her to stay there.

2.

Plaintiff is the owner-occupier of real property located at 89 Courtland Street in

Providence, Rhode Island originally purchased on June 6, 2001. As such, she
executed a mortgage agreement with Bank of America in February of 2010. This
was a refinance transaction with Bank of America initiated by Plaintiff. The new
mortgage allegedly was assigned by Bank of America to be serviced by their own
mortgage servicing company, Nationstar Mortgage LLC in February of 2015.

3.

Plaintiff dutifully made 319 timely payments on her home from the original
purchase date in June 2001 to December 2014, including the refinanced period
beginning in February 2010. This was noted in her correspondence with
Nationstar when applying for a mortgage modification. In the required
Hardship Letter she states, "According to my calculations, I have reliably made

319 on-time payments throughout the soon to be 14 years since the original

1 There

can be no material dispute as to these facts presented. Plaintiff has omitted some of her
factual allegations as alleged in her Complaint so that the Defendants cannot raise those arguments.

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 46

loan date. I am a committed homeowner who takes timely mortgage payments

seriously. I realize you are primarily looking at my current loan with Nationstar,
but I think it's important for you to take note of my overall long history of
successfully meeting my monthly mortgage responsibilities."
4.

Plaintiff applied for HAMP modification in the midst of a financial hardship from
losing her job, which was brought on by funding cuts to the human services
agency where she worked for ten years. Immediately afterward, she opened
her private practice as a licensed mental health counselor with 25 years
experience specializing in services for children and families. During this time,
she got behind on 6 of her mortgage payments. She was informed by
Nationstar that she had to issue her initial Trial Period Payment for her loan
modification on or before September 30, 2015. See Appendix A

5.

Plaintiff made such payment to Defendant on September 30, 2015 and has
continued to make all payments in a timely fashion since that time. Although the
Trial Period Plan consists of 3 payments, Plaintiff continues to send payments as
a sign of good faith towards maintaining the Agreement. See a record of 4
payments processed by Nationstar. All of Plan tiff's payments in the amount of
$1826.21 have been deducted from her checking account at Bank of America.
See Appendix A

6.

Nationstar directed Plantiff to confirm participation in a Trial Period Plan for a

mortgage modification by malting her first Trial Period Payment. The letter to
her states "You must make your first trial period payment by the first payment
due date designated below. If you fail to make the first trial period payment by
the first payment due date and we do not receive the payment by the last day of
the month in which it is due, this offer will be revoked and foreclosure
proceedings may continue and a foreclosure sale may occur." Unfortunately, in
complete breach of the Agreement, Nationstar actually foreclosed on the home
on September 16, 2015, a full fourteen days prior to the "last day of the month in
which it is due" and the due date of September 30, 2015. She was told "the bank

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 47

bought it back" by neighbors who were present for the foreclosure auction held
in front of her home that day and that Fannie Mae was the alleged purchaser.
7.

At no point did Defendant notify Plaintiff of any opportunity of mediation.

8.

The Deed was transferred to Fannie Mae on October 26, 2015 according to City
of Providence land records.

ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN DILIGENT COUNSEL

9.

After the sale and prior to the transfer, Plaintiff immediately contacted one
George Babcock, who supposedly specialized in home foreclosure and mortgage
matters, in order to gain representation. She entered into an agreement to
represent her on September 17, 2015, the day after the illegal foreclosure sale.
After several meetings with his associate who recommended Plan tiff call Fannie
Mae and "beg or cry" to get them to accept the Trial Period Payment, she met
with Attorney Babcock on November 30, 2015 to voice her dissatisfaction. At
the end of their meeting, he returned the entire $2,000.00 retainer fee to her.

10.

Along the way he had promised to have a friend set up a buy-back of the home.

11.

Plaintiff was leery of the buy-back option as she suspected it could be a

complete scam, and potentially worthy of disbarment. An email from former
Rhode Island Senator Bethany Moura confirms this. See Appendix B.

12.

On information and belief Attorney Babcock had taken her Retainer when he
lacked the authority to even fully represent her, as he had been excused from
any active Court duty by a licensed physician and could only execute "routine
matters in the office, but nothing beyond this."

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 48

RE: G!;(l<g<i!

E:oq.

ll;) fl>lll(;ovin:

00

13.

lflat A!lornl>y
llaboo!:k IS lli'IMr my'*"" DUif 10 Ill$
IWI!Ible to go to 004Jrl, Pfii'!Qmt Qllbl
llllll<s. or give Nr5

Next, former Rhode Island State Senator Bethany Moura, in her capacity as a
principal of the "Home Preservation Group, LLC" contacted a friend of Plaintiff
and encouraged him to have Plaintiff speak with the Home Preservation Group's
Attorney Mindy Montecalvo immediately. She added that Plaintiff is presently at
risk of losing her home through eviction proceedings but Mindy would need a
retainer in order to speak with Plantiff.

14.

Plaintiff did so right away. She met with Ms. Moura and Attorney Montecalvo on
December 12, 2015 and paid a retainer fee of$3,000.00 to Attorney Montecalvo
to represent her. Plaintifflogically presumed that as Attorney Babcock had done
after she gave him his retainer, that Attorney Montecalvo would also follow
through in contacting Nationstar or its Counsel to issue a Notice of Appearance
or Letter of Representation.

15.

Given the lack of due diligence with Attorney Babcock, Plaintiff was
understandably guarded. She worried about a lack of follow through by the
Home Preservation Group, LLC and so at Plantiffs request, she and her friend

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 49

professionally and politely notified Attorney Montecalvo and Ms. Moura about
their concerns with the matter of notification of representation.
16.

Apparently, no such letter was issued and Plaintiff eventually asked for her
entire correspondence file back from Attorney Montecalvo because she knew
that her case had been removed to Federal Court on December 31, 2015.
Plaintiff had received court documents at her home, as well as a phone call
directly to her from Nationstar Attorney McDonald on January 12, 2015.

17.

Therefore, on December 30, 2015 and January 13, 2016 Plaintiff inquired of
Attorney Montecalvo whether she had initiated contact with Nationstar or their
Counsel:

***************

Nationstar's attorney, answer to Complaint

4 weeks ago al: 12:JA PM

Hi Mindy and Beth,

Here's the letter I received today from the lawfirm that Nationstar is using to
answer my complaint.
Wondering if you're familiar with PLOW?
Thanks,
Martha

*************
January 13
IMPT call today from Nationstar attorney!
7,

weeks ago at 1:3'/ PM

Hi Mindy,
I received a call today from Sally McDonald who identified herself as an attorney
from Nationstar. Her message said that she sent me a letter asking me to call her
and she's following up. She repeated her request for me to call her.

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 50

What's going on? Why is she contacting me by mail and phone? I'm very concerned
and confused. I'm hoping you can please tell me they know that you are
representing me as my attorney. We've had over a month since we signed our
attorney /client agreement on December 12th. Now it's January 13th.
I've received mail at my home from Nationstar in the form of court filings as ifl'm
still pro se. Today I received the call instead of your office.
Her number is 401-824-5148. Please call her back ASAP on mv behalf.
I thought our meeting went very well last week. I'm glad you said the evidence I
have is some of the best you've seen for dual tracking. Please let me know what's
happening with my case.
Thanks!
Martha

18.

Plaintiff also left phone messages for Attorney Montecalvo without any reply for
days until she requested her complete correspondence file back from Attorney
Montecalvo on or about January 23, 2016. On receipt of the hard copy files she
inquired on January 25, 2016:

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:11PM

Dear Mindy,
I received the package you sent via Fed Ex last week. Thank you for assembling
everything and sending it to me. I'm unsure of why there's no documentation of
when phone calls or other communication occurred. One would usually expect that
a "Correspondence File" would contain specific dates and times of phone calls,
names of people with whom you spoke, and brief notes of what was discussed. I
don't see any of these specifics in the records you sent me. I respectfully request
that you send me this information to correlate with the fees outlined in your
correspondence to me, especially since you've already performed 10.5 hours
beyond what my original $3000.00 retainer could cover.
In addition to this information requested above, I would also like you to please send
me the electronic versions of all the documents prepared for me that are listed in
your breakdown of fees charged to my case.
This includes the Complaint you so adeptly composed that clearly outlines
everything so well, including the dual tracking by Nationstar. Also, the timeline,
and other supporting documentation for my case. I'm in the process of putting this
all together for the counsel I've found through the recommendation of a colleague.]
will use the electronic documents to update and make corrections with a few details
concerning the timeline.

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 51

I need this information immediately as I'm moving forward with trying to stay in my
home. Please send this to me right away, no later than 9:00am on 1/27/16. If there
is any reason why this cannot happen, please notifY me right away.
Thank you,
Martha Brunzos

She further stated:

That being said, I am asking you for crucial information regarding when you spoke
with opposing counsel, Attorney McDonald, as well as when you sent her the
documentation from my case. I've reached out to her to follow-up on the next steps
but I haven't heard back from her as of yet. I'm financially constricted in moving
forward with a retainer for my next counsel, so in the meantime, I'm making every
effort not to let matters get stalled.
especially the fact that when you
Your work in this matter has been very
spoke with Attorney McDonald, she gave you permission to contact Nationstar's
bank attorney in North Carolina as you indicated in your letter to me. What is the
contact name and number you got for that please? It's not included in the file you
gave me.
She also requested that the electronic file be produced but for some reason Attorney
Montecalvo curiously refused to produce any electronic documents.
Plaintiff is aware that it is not this Court's job to find her responsive and diligent Counsel.
She respectfully asserts that it is this Court's job to be certain that she receives a Fair Shake,
and that is something that she has been religiously DENIED in this case from all corners.

********
While all this was going on, just last week a Plaintiff in the Ninth Circuit was awarded
$214,000.00 after a servicer broke the law to her detriment and lied in Lucero v. Cenlar,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10430 (Washington WD Jan 28 2016):

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 52

**********
When plaintiff requested information regarding the charges, she was ignored for months.
Eventually various contract provisions were identified, and Cenlar asserted that it was
simply keeping track of charges it might eventually seek to recover from plaintiff. z
Regardless of whether Cenlar was demanding immediate payment or was simply
threatening to collect them in the future, the message was clear: continue this litigation and
we will take your home. Such conduct is beyond the bounds of decency and is utterly
intolerable.
Damages caused by Cenlar's outrageous conduct include:
$26,724 in charges to her account with NationStar
$1,950 in attorney's fees for drafting and sending requests for information to Cenlar
$208 time spent reviewing documents regarding charges imposed on her mortgage account
$30 in gas traveling to and from attorney's office
$12 in copying and postage expenses related to the requests for information
$2,700 in counseling expenses
$21.504 in lost wages from November 2014 to February 2015
$13,760 in reduced wages from March 2015 to December 2015
$55,000 in emotional distress damages from December 4, 2013, to March 24, 2014
$42.500 in emotional distress damages from March 25.2014. to June 18.2014
$49,500 in emotional distress damages from June 19,2014, to October 27, 2015 for a total
of $213,888.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Case 2:13-cv-00602-RSL
Document 294 Filed 01/28/16
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor
plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $213,888.
To the extent plaintiff has a contractual or statutory right to attorney's fees, she may file a
motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2).
Dated this 28th day ofJanuary, 2016.
RobertS. Lasnik United States District Judge

*********

This particular contention is contradicted by the documents plaintiff was receiving from Cenlar on a
regular basis which indicated that the fees and charges were part of the "Amount Due."

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 53

ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE OR REASON WITH NATIONSTAR COUNSEL

19.

As noted, Plaintiff received a telephone call on January 19, 2015 from Nationstar
Attorney Shannon P. McDonald, an attorney with Pannone, Lopes eta!.

20.

In response to this call Plaintiff of course wrote Attorney McDonald not once,
but twice .... Receiving absolutely no response to these professional and

courteous emails:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38AM, Martha Brunzos

wrote:

Dear Attorney McDonald,

Good morning!
I received your phone message last week on 1/19/16 in follow-up to the documents you
mailed me. I sincerely apologize for the delay in replying to you but there was much
confusion on my part as I expected you to reach out to my attorney, Mindy Montecalvo,
instead of me as I secured her representation in this matter on 12/12/16. Would you
please tell me if you received a letter of representation from her? In her communication
to me, she has documented her phone call to you recently as well as the sending of
crucial documentation regarding my Trial Payment Plan (TPP) and due date/payment
information"
Thank you for contacting me regards to these outstanding matters. I can appreciate that
this has been confusing for you as well. I will infer that you did so because you were
not put on actual notice that I was represented by Counsel and that will address the
question posed by my friend, Mr. Christopher King, in a recent email to all of us.
For his part, I trust that you already !mow and understand that he does not like
Nationstar but he has absolutely nothing against you or your firm. You are just doing the
job vou were retained to do.
With that issue resolved, I am coming to you to simply ask what your plan is moving
forward? Of utmost importance, I'm asking will Nationstar continue on with this and
move toward eviction? I am hoping now that you have seen that they promised me
a 9/30/15 due date for my initial TPP payment and you have also reviewed the
documentation of my payment tendered on 9/30/16 just as I swore in my Complaint.
I am just as truthful in telling you that I know for fact that I had accurately and
completely filled out my modification application and both faxed and uploaded required
documents prior to the deadline for submission to Nationstar. Unlike previous
notification from them in the modification application process, Nationstar never gave
me a specific reason or identified what specific documents I allegedly didn't submit in
their denial letter to me on 7/24/15. I'm told that is another violation on their part.
At this point I am certain that what I have experienced is a situation of unparalleled
exception in regards to questionable and reliable representation.

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 54

That being said, Attorney Montecalvo did prepare an amended complaint for me to
continue on course with this matter. I just need to know what Nationstar's intentions
are in this matter. I respectfully suggest we put in a joint request for mediation before a
Magistrate.
Please let me know if that is something vou and vour client are agreeable to, or whether
I need to seek out yet another attorney (for the third time) to continue with my
complaint. My income has stabilized as my private practice as a licensed mental health
counselor has erown. More imnortantlv, as a homeowner. I am solvent now. Everv
month since September, I've been continuing to make monthly payments as a show of
good faith. Every month these payments have been processed through my bank account
by Nationstar. I would verv much like to resolve this matter. Please talk to your client
and let's work this out
As you can imagine, this has been quite an ordeal for me and though I don't wish to
pressure vou. I'm honing to hear back from vou before the close of business todav even
if it's just to confirm a plan for us to speak to each other early next week. That way
I'm not left in suspense over yet another weekend. I thank you in advance for your
consideration in this matter and I look forward to sneakine with vou.
Sincerely,
Martha Brunzos
(401) 559-3907

************
1/28/16
Re: Update and Request-Nationstar case
2 clays <JE;O at

PM

Dear Attorney McDonald,

I tried contacting you by phone a short while ago and left you a voicemail at your office.
Understandably, I am extremely concerned that I have not heard back from you as it has

uvvu

.
.1.

i \.,;U'-'ii\,;U. V\.ll. \.U

_yvu..

As stated in my previous email, I have experienced is a situation of unparalleled exception

..

..

'I

..

...

'I

ifi rt:garu::; l:G tj_UC::iUVHCiiJiC CiiiU i"i,;HCiiJit: rcprt;::;t.,;ii\.Ci\.i\.iii iii

..

..........

..

'

..

i.:Ci::>C. i iiCii... iiCiiig ;,)iilU 1

Attorney Montecalvo did prepare an amended Compiaint for me to continue on course with
my case. I just need to know what Nationstar's intentions are in this matter. I
acspcc.:fuiiy suggest we put in a joint request for mediation before a Magistrate.
What is your client's response to this proposal?
The other matter at hand invoives your communication with Attorney Iviomecaivo on
1/15/16. I know you and she spoke because she has referenced it in her itemized billing,
listing it as .5 hours for her phone call to you.
It is my understanding that Attorney Montecalvo did not send you a letter of
representation which is why you contacted me directly on 1/12/16. It also would
explain why the Response and Removal notices from my Complaint were mailed to mv
home instead of Attorney Montecalvo's office.

10

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 55

As you know, there are rules regarding the proper functioning of the legal system that
protect a person/client who has chosen to be represented by an attorney. On 12/12/15, I
retained Attorney Montecalvo's representation in this matter which can be supported by
my signed agreement and processed check in the amount of $3000.00 which served as the
retainer.
My unanswered question posed to both you and Attorney Montecalvo remains. Did
you receive a letter of representation from Attorney Montecalvo prior to calling me on
1/12/16? Please be aware that earlier this week I sooke with Mr. David Curtin from the RI
Bar Association Disciplinary Counsel as I'm considering filing a complaint in this matter.
There seem to be serious ethical questions still unanswered regarding the communication
between vou and Attornev Montecalvo in the absence of a letter of reoresentation as well as
your phone call made directly to me on 1/12/16.
Once aeain, let me emphasize, I would prefer to settle this matter with Nat:ionstar bv
means of a joint request for mediation before a Magistrate. Is your client is
agreeable to this?
Please contact me via email or phone tomorrow in response to the questions put forth.
Sincerelv.
Martha Brunzos
(401) 559-3907

11

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 56

LAW AND ARGUMENT

The only person in all of this who has acted professionally and upheld her promises
has been Plaintiff. That much is patently clear. And for those reasons she Is entitled to
Judgment as a matter of Law per Rule 56 because there are no material facts in dispute and
reasonable minds may reach but one conclusion.
On June 17,2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued rules to
establish new, strong protections for struggling homeowners facing foreclosure. The rules
also protect mortgage borrowers from costly surprises and runarounds by their servicers.
Under the federal government law, servicers must consider and respond to a borrower's
application for a loan modification if it arrives at least 3 7 days before a scheduled
foreclosure sale. If the servicer offers an alternative to foreclosure, they must give the
borrower time to accept the offer before moving for foreclosure judgment or conducting a
foreclosure sale. Servicers cannot foreclose on a property if the borrower and servicer have
come to a loss mitigation agreement, unless the borrower fails to perform under that
agreement. This ideology of this law was upheld by numerous federal courts.
In 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 717
F.3d224- 2013, the court held that, if Young fully performed the trial period plan, then
Wells Fargo was obligated to offer Young a permanent modification under the "TPP's plain
terms." In other words, a TPP is enforceable if the borrower fully performs. The First Circuit
followed a similar decision from the Seventh Circuit from 2012, in which the court found
that "a reasonable person in fthe homeowner'sl position would read the TPP as a definite
offer to provide a permanent modification that she could accept so long as she satisfied the
conditions." Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank. N.A .. No. 10 CV 2348. 2011 WL 250501.
Defendants never had any intention of entering into a valid contract because on
wniu:!r revtew, Liley never evenwtu rtatnLut wnaL uucumerus were auegeuy mtssmg WIH;!Il

they denied her the HAiviP Iviociiiicarion aiJ micio: She checi<eci cite upioaci screen ami aii ui
the dots were cleared/lined up as showing COMPLETE when she finished her Application;
Defendants are lying as they are wont to do: It is Nationstar and Harmon Law's modus

operandi.
See by way of comparison Brickett v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 607 Fed. Appx. 5 (1st
Cr. Ct. App 2015)(No Application tendered) and see Figueroa v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 70960 (D-Mass 2013)

12

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 57

Instead, Figueroa must allege facts showing that the violation was unfair or
deceptive. See
That she has certainly failed to do. The
mere allegation that defendants [*14] foreclosed while her loan modification
was pending is not enough to show unfairness or deception.
In this case, Plaintiff had more than applied ..... she had applied, was accepted, was given a
final due date of September 30, 2015 in which to complete her payment, and yet was sold
down the river two (2) weeks shy of such date.

CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDMENT

1.

Breach of Contract and/or Anticipated Breach of Contract-- The actions

of Defendant constitute a Breach of Contract in the traditional sense
and/or in the sense that they are about to finish breaching the contract
in the immediate future after they wrongfully and unlawfully reject all of
Plaintiffs documents and payments.

2.

Promissory Estoppel -- The Defendants led Plaintiff down the primrose

path then yanked the rug out from under her even though she placed
reasonable reliance on the promises and representations of Defendants,
much to her detriment.

3.

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing- The Defendant's

actions clearly violate any applicable standards of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, and they are willing to jeopardize the health and safety of a
single mother and her child along the way.

4.

Unlawful Dual-Tracking- This is the precise sort of conduct that is

verboten by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB).

5.

Common Law Fraud - Again, the allegations support a Cause of Action

under this rubric.

13

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 58

DEMAND3
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Homeowner prays this Honorable Court:
(1) Set aside the foreclosure sale conducted by Defendants;
(2) Order that title of Plaintiffs properly be cleared and placed in the name of plaintiff with
the full right to possess and enjoy the property;

(3) Award damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial; and

(4) Enjoin Defendants and their agents, contactors, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries
and other related parties from taking any action to sell, encumber, or alienate Plaintiffs
property and to issue a Preliminary Injunction until this case is concluded and the Rights of
the parties are determined.
(5) Set the Case for a Jury Trial on the matter of Damages.

AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATION

The foregoing Complaint is true and accurate to the best of Plaintiffs recollection and belief.

NOTA y PUBLIC
My Commission Expires

I ;{.
/Ofl

YfJ;(f

89 Courtland Street
Providence, RI 02909

to Damages vis a vis the Lucero v. Cenlar case and other conceptual frameworks of Justice,
Plaintiff has been mentally distraught by all of this, has lost thousands of dollars because of all of this,
she has been emotionally damaged and all of this will be proved in the Damages phase of Trial. Sadly,
Plaintiff's Counsel told her not to expect any good Court decisions here in Rhode Island because "It
doesn't work that way out here." Well perhaps it is high time that changed: While Plaintiff initially
told Defenants she would settle for a walkaway and rescission of Sale, that is not fair at this point as
the case has dragged on.
3 As

14

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 59

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I the undersigned swear that I served a copy of the foregoing Motion and Memorandum in
Support to Defendant via email and tracked USPS Priority Mail at:
Sally P. McDonald, Esq. (#8265)
PANNONE LOPES DEVEREAUX & WEST, LLC
317 Iron Horse Way
Suite 301
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
Telephone: (401) 824-5148
Facsimile: (401) 824-5123
SJvlc:Q_onaldGvpldw.com

Providence, RI 02909

" 15

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 60

913&2015

at

MORT

Thank you tbr making a payment at MyNationstar.com!

Below are your payment details:
From Account: Bank of America, National Association ****5285
To Account:
Loan Number *****27064
Payn1cnt Date: \\'ednesday Se11tember 30, 2015
Payment Amount:
Transaction Fcc:
Other Amount:
'Total Payment:

$1,826.21
$9.95
$0.00
$L,836.16

Your confirmation number is 32244340

You will receive an email confirmation shm1ly
Printed on: 9/30/20 15

17

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 61

horn online accocmt

AccounL

f\JATI

to hardshJp assis1ai'lcc, you'U find the n.eo?.ss.ary tnforrnation you r.ood to hdp fnanage ymJr N-atia-.star

F'?.O\lDtNO-, Ri,tfJ1Jt}',l

$25$.143.\1J
n1f

lll11!1',1;ti p(U!f
lu ll<1'fall
0/X..tlxnf.,

j'I:J' lhll

fu.fl
ll

p&yuffq.w!r.

WELCOME TO NATIONSTAR
From onl\fie account access to hardsh1p asststance, you'H find the ncce-s.;ary k'lformati:on you need to h-elp manage your Natioos.tar
Account.

My Home Loan
"il1h i\ rcl11<\ l'""'tt J'"".i'll!l
fu tic luf
.t111Q>J'11 lu
t\n W.tlh.ln\ jll!ltllt:l
P"tu!lquut"-

18

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 62

Display 1 25

: I records

Effective Date
12/09/2015
: 12109/2015
; 11101/2015
.: 11101/2015
; 11101/2015
; 11101/2015
j 11101/2015
10/30/2015
j

10/30/2015

109/3012015

j09/30/2015
j 09/30/2015
109/30/2015
!, 11/14/2014
j 11/14/2014
: 10/15/2014
110/15/2014
\09/15/2014
.: 09/15/2014
j 08115/2014
j 08/15/2014
:07/16/2014
; 07/16/2014
! 06/16/2014
j 06/16/2014
1 FirstPrcvious12NcxtLast

Sore: If payment h mwJe on a weekend or a holiday

tra.nSKtlon hi!. tory.

Type
Payment
Reversal
Payment
Fees
Payment
Reversal
Payment
Reversal
l'ees
Payment
Payment
Reversal
Payment
Payment
Reversal
Payment
Reversal
Fees
Payment
Fees
Payment
Fees
Payment
Fees
Payment
l'ees
Payment
Fees
Payment
Fees
Payment

Amount

Principal

Interest

Escrow

Fees

Wlow until

Balance

1,615.13

-365.99

-1,249.14

0.00

0.00

255,143.63

1,615.13
9.95

365.99
0.00

1,249.14
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
9.95

254,777.64
255,143.63

-1,615.13

-365.99

-1,249.14

0.00

0.00

255,143.63

-9.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

-9.95

254,777.64

9.95
1,615.13

0.00
365.99

0.00
1,249.14

0.00
0.00

9.95
0.00

254,777.64
254,777.64

-1,615.13

-365.99

-1,249.14

0.00

0.00

255,143.63

1,615.13

365.99

1,249.14

0.00

0.00

254,777.64

-1,615.13

-365.99

-1,249.14

0.00

0.00

255,143.63

-9.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

-9.95

254,777.64

9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13
9.95
1,615.13

0.00
365.99
0.00
364.21
0.00
362.43
0.00
360.67
0.00
358.91
0.00
357.16
0.00
355.42

0.00
1,249.14
0.00
1,250.92
0.00
1,252.70
0.00
1,254.46
0.00
1,256.22
0.00
1,257.97
0.00
1,259.71

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00
9.95
0.00

254,777.64
254,777.64
255,143.63
255,143.63
255,507.84
255,507.84
255,870.27
255,870.27
256,230.94
256,230.94
256,589.85
256,589.85
256,947.01
256,947.01

..

19

Case 1:15-cv-00558-S-PAS Document 4-1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 63

'\weeks ;qzo ni

AlVI

FromBeth M
And note that Cindy has an opportunity to secure financing for the client. And passes on it
because there is no kickback being offered. If they can't get a kickback their client loses their
home. George Babcock's clients' opportunities to keep their homes rest solely upon George
making a profit on it behind the scenes. It is not and never has been about anything other
than his greed. It's not about right and wrong. How is he any better than the banks?

3 weeks ago Cli. 9:4S A.M

FromBeth
And note that Cindy has an opportunity to secure financing for the client. And passes on it
because there is no kickback being offered. If they can't get a kickback their client loses their
home. George Babcock's clients' opportunities to keep their homes rest solely upon George
making a profit on it behind the
It is not and never has been about anything other
than his greed. It's not about right and wrong. How is he any better than the banks?
He guides clients in the direction that makes him the most money. Not the way that benefits
them the most.
He will argue that he's getting them the house back and reducing their principal balance on
a house they were severely underwater on. Ok.
$350,000 modified to 3% for 40 years. $1,253 /month paying principal and interest with 40
years of security to stay there (or short sale down the line on their own terms). He charges
the client $3,500.
George makes $3,500.
$150,000 new loan at 15% interest only (no principal paydown) for 12 months with a hard
money lender. Client pays: 5 points up front to lender $7,500 and $3,500 to George and
Cindy Faria. That's $11,000 and their payment is $1,896/month. George gets the $3,500
from the client, maybe another $2,000 from the bank for attorney fee for seller and maybe a
kickback of at least 20% from the investor he lined up.
George makes $7,700 without even getting a 20% kickback on the interest profit and profit
the investor makes on the profit he will make when (if) the homeowners buy the house
back
If they <::an't buy the house back (most will never be able to) the investor forecloses, flips it
and George gets a bigger kick back He will never help these people get new mortgages after
that one year is up. Never.

20