You are on page 1of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Jennifer Harwood, Pro per 44263 W. McClelland Drive Maricopa, AZ 85138

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Debtor ) ) ________________________________________ ) ) JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD, an individual ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CRESTAR MORTGAGE, a tradename; SUNTRUST ) MORTGAGE, a Virginia corporation; ) NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, a Texas limited ) liability company; FEDERAL NATIONAL ) MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a federally chartered corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, PERRY & SHAPIRO, L.L.P. an ) Arizona limited liability partnership; SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., an ) Arizona limited liability partnership; ) JASON P. SHERMAN, ESQ.; KRISTIN E.MATHERS, ) ESQ.; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1-100; ) BLACK CORPORATIONS 1-100; and WHITE ) PARTNERSHIPS 1-100, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD,

CHAPTER 7 Case No.: 4:11-bk-34126-EWH Adversary No.: ______________________

COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT AND VALIDITY OF LIEN, TO DISALLOW ANY SECURED CLAIM, DETERMINE SECURED STATUS OF LIEN, TILA VIOLATIONS, FRAUD, LIBEL, QUIET TITLE, DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT FREE OF SECURED STATUS, SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF.

COMES NOW, Debtor and Plaintiff (hereinafter Plaintiff) and files this 24 COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT AND VALIDITY OF LIEN, TO DISALLOW ANY 25 SECURED CLAIM, DETERMINE SECURED STATUS OF LIEN, TILA VIOLATIONS, FRAUD, LIBEL, QUIET 26 TITLE, DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT,SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF and 27 in support thereof states as follows: 28

Complaint - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

This adversary proceeding is brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 506 and

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1409, Venue is proper as Plaintiff is a debtor in

this Court with standing to pursue this adversary proceeding. 3. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding. This is a core proceeding because it is an action to determine the

validity, extent and nature of a lien on property that was recorded with the Pinal County Recorder as document nos. 2005-060065, 2007-056621, 2010-119871, 2011-077258, and the allowance or disallowance of a claim filed by any creditor of the debtor with respect to such recorded lien. PARTIES 5. JENNIFER MICHELE HARWOOD, is an individual and a debtor in a Chapter 7 Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter

case before this Court.

7 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 16, 2011. 6. Plaintiff is the recorded owner of real property (Subject Property)

located at 44263 W. McClelland Drive, Maricopa, AZ 85138. 7. Defendant, CRESTAR MORTGAGE is a Tradename duly registered with the

Arizona Secretary of State by SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, a Delaware corporation, with an address of 901, Semmes Avenue, 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23224. 8. Defendant, SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. is registered with the Arizona

Corporation Commission as a Virginia foreign corporation with an address of 901, Semmes Avenue, 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23224. 9. Defendant, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C., is registered with the Arizona

Corporation Commission as a Delaware foreign limited liability company with an address of 2711 Centerville Road, #400, Wilmington, DE 19808. 10. Defendant, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, is a federally chartered

corporation with an address of 3500 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20016.

Complaint - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 85012.

11.

Defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., is pending

approval with the Arizona Corporation Commission as a Delaware foreign corporation with an address of 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190. At the time the transactions took place, Plaintiff, upon information and belief, alleges that said Defendant was a foreign corporation not authorized to transact business in the State of Arizona under Arizona Revised Statutes and therefore, further alleges that any assignments, transfers, conveyances purportedly made by MERS are VOID as a matter of law. 12. Defendant, PERRY & SHAPIRO, L.L.P. an Arizona limited liability

partnership, is a law firm located at 3300 N. Central Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the principles and/or

employees of the firm under the direction of the principles orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder. 13. Defendant, SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., an Arizona limited

17 18 19 20 21 orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments, notice of trustees 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder. 14. Defendant, JASON P. SHERMAN, ESQ., is an individual and an attorney at liability partnership; is a law firm located at 3300 N. Central Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the

principles and/or employees of the firm under the direction of the principles

the law firm of SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., located at 3300 N. Central

Complaint - 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that the Defendant orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments, notice of trustees sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder. 15. Defendant, KRISTIN E.MATHERS, ESQ., is an individual and an attorney at

the law firm of SHAPIRO, VAN ESS and SHERMAN, L.L.P., located at 3300 N. Central Avenue, #2200, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges

that the Defendant orchestrated the creation and execution of fraudulent assignments, notice of trustees sale and substitutions of trustee and caused the same to be recorded in the public record via the Pinal County Recorder. 16. Plaintiff hereby names all Defendants known and unknown that may be

claiming by, through or under such persons, any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property described herein as adverse to the Plaintiffs title thereto or which may constitute a cloud on Plaintiffs title to the Subject Property. 17. Unknown Defendants 1 through 100 are corporate entities and/or

individuals that may have a legal interest in the promissory note, deed of trust, assignments or the real property which is the subject of this proceeding. 18. Unknown Defendants 1 through 100 are corporate entities and/or

individuals that may be responsible for the acts complained of herein.

FACTS 19. Plaintiff acquired title to the Subject Property by Special Warranty Deed

dated November 16, 2004 from First American Title Company, a California Corporation. 20. Plaintiff executed a promissory note dated May 5, 2005 payable to Crestar (Exhibit A).

Mortgage for the sum of $163,700.00.

Complaint - 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust dated May 13, 2005 conveying her The Deed of Trust

interest in the Subject Property to secure repayment of a Note.

names the lender as Crestar Mortgage, the Trustee as Michael A. Bosco, Jr. and MERS as the beneficiary under the security instrument as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns. 22. (Exhibit B)

A promissory note executed by the Plaintiff may or may not have been Plaintiff reserves the right to amend

sold into a secondary market or securitized.

this complaint upon the discovery of additional and relevant facts. 23. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated April 3, 2007 (Exhibit C) was

executed by Lorrie L. Pond as Officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder on May 11, 2007 as document no. 2007-056621. This document alleges to assign any interest MERS has as Upon information and

beneficiary under the Deed of Trust to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

belief, at the time of execution of this assignment, Lorrie L. Pond was not employee or an officer of MERS or of Crestar Mortgage but worked in the foreclosure department of SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. with her email address and telephone number being: Lorrie.Pond@suntrust.com and (804)319-4797. (Exhibit D). No instrument

demonstrating any authority that SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. may have to act on behalf of Crestar Mortgage has been recorded in the public record or otherwise provided to the Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff applied for a loan modification under President Obamas Home

Affordability and Stability Plan (HAMP) on September 23, 2009 through SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and was approved under the terms of the plan on or about June 22, 2010. However, repeated attempts by Plaintiff to finalize the modification were ignored by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. As a result, the Plaintiff, apparently along with thousands

of other homeowners across the nation, became suspicious about the exact nature of the loan programs offered and the cause of the faltering economy.

Complaint - 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

25.

On or about October 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the

United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Kentucky against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and sister companies alleging loan modification fraud under President Obamas HAMP program. 26. On or about November 12, 2010, Plaintiff received a notice from SunTrust

Mortgage, Inc. that servicing of the loan was being transferred to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. 27. Plaintiff sent qualified written requests to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and

Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. on or about November 30, 2010. 28. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated December 6, 2010 (Exhibit E) was

executed by Bryan Bly as Vice-President for MERS and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder on December 29, 2010 as document no. 2010-119871. This document was notarized by Crystal Moore, Commission #DD 927242 in the State of Florida. Upon

information and belief, at the time of execution of this assignment, Bryan Bly was not an employee or officer of MERS but worked as a robo-signer at Nationwide Title Clearing along with Crystal Moore, the Notary Public. This document alleges that any interest held by MERS in the Deed of Trust on the Subject Property was transferred to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. Unfortunately, MERS already assigned its interest, if any

existed, in the previously recorded assignment. 29. Examples of Mr. Blys and Ms. Moores work which are unrelated to the

Subject Property are attached as Exhibit F. 30. On or about December 10, 2010, Plaintiff received correspondence from

Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. that indicated that she was delinquent as of May 1, 2010 on her loan. This notice came as a surprise to Plaintiff because payments were being

paid timely to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. under the trial loan modification agreement. 31. On or about December 15, 2010, Plaintiff received correspondence from

Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. that welcomed her to Nationstar as it was the new servicer of the loan. Plaintiff immediately contacted Nationstar to inquire about the loan

Complaint - 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

modification and was told that its records did not include any information concerning a loan modification or payments being made under a trial loan modification agreement. 32. On or about December 15, 2010, Plaintiff received a response from

Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. indicating that the owner of the debt (i.e.: Note) was Fannie Mae. (Exhibit G) FANNIE MAE was not a party to the original transaction and has never been named in any document recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder as having an interest in the Subject Property. 33. Plaintiff was provided incomplete, partial and inaccurate accountings of

loan payments by Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. 34. An Assignment of Deed of Trust dated December 22, 2010 (Exhibit H) was

executed by Whytnie Nordman as Assistant Secretary of Nationstar Mortgage in its capacity as Attorney-in-fact for Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. and recorded in the records of Pinal County Recorder on September 26, 2011 as document number 2011-077258. This

document was notarized by Brandon David Jones in the State of Texas on September 17th but the year is unknown as it is not written in the notarization. This document alleges that the beneficial interest in Deed of Trust on the Subject Property was transferred from SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. No instrument demonstrating any authority that Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. may have to act on behalf of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. has been recorded in the public or otherwise provided to the Plaintiff. This assignment allegedly is effective on a date that occurs between

the date the previous assignment was signed by Bryan Bly and the date if was recorded by the Pinal County Recorder. Unfortunately again, this document is not effective if

the previous assignments were fraudulent, void or otherwise ineffective under the law. 35. A Notice of Substitution of Trustee which is undated but was executed by

Robert Walsh as Assistant Secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. in its capacity as beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder on September 20, 2011 as document no. 2011-077259. (Exhibit I) This

document was notarized by Stephanie Denton in the State of Texas on March 3, 2011.

Complaint - 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

36.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that under the terms of

the Note, no power or authority was given to MERS to transfer, assign, or otherwise pledge the promissory note to any party under any circumstances or conditions.

PLAINTIFFS BANKRUPTCY FILING 37. Debtor (Plaintiff) filed a Chapter 7 petition and related schedules on

December 16, 2011. 38. Based upon the foregoing Facts, Debtor completed her petition and

schedules by listing her residence as an exempt asset on Schedule C. 39. Based upon the foregoing Facts, Debtor completed her petition and

schedules by listing none for creditors holding secured claims on Schedule D. 40. Based upon the foregoing Facts, Debtor completed her petition and

schedules by listing a promissory note payable to unknown for creditors holding unsecured non-priority claims on Schedule F. 41. To a large extent, the same circumstances arise in this present case as

did In re Agard, 10- 77338, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). Judge Robert E. Grossmans opinion was set aside within the last few weeks by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in Central Islip. Plaintiffs position is

that only valid secured claims legally pass through the bankruptcy process and remain attached to the collateral. no valid secured claims. Plaintiff prepared her petition and schedules reflecting

Defendants were provided notice of Plaintiffs filing and

chose to not file an Objection to Discharge or a Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay but instead avoid this Court by waiting until Plaintiffs discharge was entered so the fraud/theft could continue unobstructed. The countrys judiciary has produced rulings and decisions on this varied subject matter that differ greatly. Meanwhile, thousands

of more Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure through little or no fault of

Complaint - 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

their own.

Plaintiffs position is that all her valid, unsecured debts were

discharged on April 12, 2012 and that no valid, secured liens existed at the time of her bankruptcy filing. The Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that this Court

decide the issue on this cases merits. 42. The first Meeting of Creditors was scheduled for March 2, 2012. The time

for objections to debtors discharge expired on April 4, 2012.

No objections to

Debtors discharge as presented by Plaintiff in her petition and schedules were filed by any of the Defendants. 43. This Court entered its Order of Discharge on April 12, 2012.

Allegations 44. Crestar Mortgage alleged that it was the originator of the Plaintiffs

loan for the Subject Property when the facts reflect that Crestar Mortgage was only a tradename used and registered by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Upon information and belief,

Plaintiff alleges that Crestor Mortgage was never a valid creditor of Plaintiff because the funds came from another source that is unknown to Plaintiff and that any conveyance of a beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust from Plaintiff to Crestar Mortgage was induced by fraud and that any ownership interest Crestar Mortgage received under the Promissory Note and/or Deed of Trust is void because a tradename is not able to be a real party in interest to a contract as it is not a person, corporation, partnership or otherwise and is therefore, void as a matter of law. the other hand, if a tradename is a permissible party under the law and is a valid party to the Note and Deed of Trust then the Plaintiffs indebtedness to this note remains uncertain because the original note has not been seen since the signing and its whereabouts or existence remains unknown. 45. Under Arizona law, the note and the mortgage are inseparable, with the On

former being essential while the latter is an incident, and that an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter [the

Complaint - 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

mortgage or deed of trust] alone is a nullity. The assignor of a deed of trust (MERS, Crestar Mortgage, etc.) must own the note in order to assign the incident deed of trust, so MERS and Crestar Mortgage are legally precluded from assigning the deed of trust for want of ownership of the note, and cannot assign the note in any event as those parties never owned it. MERS lack of ownership interest in any note is a matter of decided case law not to mention based on a recorded stipulation of MERS own lawyers in the MERS v. Nebraska Dept. of Finance decision. Due to the foregoing, upon information and belief, the Assignment of Deed of Trust dated April 3, 2007 and executed by Lorrie L. Pond as an officer on behalf of MERS to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. is void as a matter of law as Lorrie L. Pond was not an officer of MERS but merely an employee of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. at the time of the execution and notarization of the document. A party may not assign to itself an interest owned by

another as it flies in the face of not only common sense but basic principles of law that span the world. Furthermore, this assignment is invalid and void because MERS Crestar

was named in the Deed of Trust as a nominee of the lender Crestar Mortgage.

Mortgage is not specifically identified as a tradename of any specific company, did not actually lend any funds to the Plaintiff and thus, the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust are invalid and violate true disclosure to the Borrower under the Truth In Lending Act (TILA). In other words, since Crestar Mortgage was only a tradename, it

could not have been a party to a contract, it did not lend any funds to the Plaintiff and accordingly, MERS has no legal authority as Crestar Mortgages nominee to assign its interest to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiff further alleges that under Arizona law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note and that at no time did MERS or Crestar Mortgage have the original Note in its possession, hold the negotiable paper in bearer form or have any legal ownership interest in the Note and as a result, the preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust (Exhibit C) was intended to conceal and deceive the public at large, and thus, is fraudulent and VOID as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar

Complaint - 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. held any legal interest in the Note that any assignments recorded prior to this Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as a matter of law and thus, failed to legally transfer any interest to SunTrust Mortgage, L.L.C. 46. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust

dated December 6, 2010 and executed by Bryan Bly as Vice-President of MERS to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. is void as a matter of law as Bryan Bly was not an officer of MERS but merely an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing whose role at the company was to falsify documents on behalf of financial institutions and Fannie Mae. Furthermore, the signatures of Bryan Bly and the Notary Public, Crystal Moore, do not comply with Florida law in that both parties failed to sign their complete names instead executing the documents with their initials. Plaintiff further alleges that

under Arizona law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note and that at no time did MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. have the original Note in its possession, hold the negotiable paper in bearer form or have any ownership interest in the Note and as a result, the preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust was intended to conceal and deceive the public at large, and thus is fraudulent and VOID as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. held an in interest in the Note that assignments recorded prior to this Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as a matter of law and thus, failed to legally transfer any interest to Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. as no security attaches to wild deed or fraudulent instruments. 47. Upon information and belief, the Assignment of Deed of Trust dated

September 17, 2011 and executed by Whytnie Nordman as Assistant Secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C., in its capacity as attorney in fact for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. is void as a matter of law (Texas law) as the notarization of the document is incomplete in that the year was omitted from the Notary Publics

Complaint - 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

attestation clause. Furthermore, this assignment appears to have been prepared and recorded by the law firm of Shapiro, Van Ess & Sherman, L.L.P. without knowledge of the preparation and recording of the assignment executed by Bryan Bly and serves only to further cloud Plaintiffs title and make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to determine who is legally entitled to payment under the note. Plaintiff further alleges that under Arizona law, any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust follows the Note and that at no time did MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. have the original Note in its possession, hold the negotiable paper in bearer form or have any ownership interest in the Note and as a result, the preparation and recording of the Assignment of Deed of Trust was intended to conceal and deceive the public at large, and thus is fraudulent and VOID as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleges further that even if MERS, Crestar Mortgage or SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. held an in interest in the Note that assignments recorded prior to this Assignment of Deed of Trust were VOID as a matter of law and thus, failed to legally transfer any interest to SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. as no security attaches to a wild deed or fraudulent instruments. 48. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust or other document executed by MERS

and recorded in the records of the Pinal County Recorder is void as it would be an attempt to transfer a non-existent beneficial interest. interest in the loan. MERS had no pecuniary

MERS, who has no beneficial interest to assign and no pecuniary

interest in the promissory note, would have no legal authority to draft mortgage assignments and substitutions of trustee. perjury in relation to their testimony. The Defendants and their agents commit If the loan was securitized, Crestar Mortgage

was not the lender even if a tradename can be a party to a contract as originators of those types of loans immediately and simultaneously securitize the notes. Servicers

or other parties that routinely declare the defaults of those loans are not in privity with the lender. The true owner or beneficiary of the note have not declared a

default and usually no longer have an interest in the note. The pseudo-government

Complaint - 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

agencies that helped create MERS and the resulting messes are now under receivership, have been bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer and are now owned, quite frankly by the very Americans whose homes are being stolen. 49. The Plaintiffs note and deed of trust, if valid and legally enforceable,

took divergent paths at the inception of the transaction and by the Defendants continued perpetuation of fraud by creating and recording additional fraudulent assignments, the note and deed of trust were married to that separation. 50. MERS, Crestar Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Nationstar Mortgage,

L.L.C. have never had a beneficial or pecuniary interest in the subject Note, have no authority (agency or nominee) to convey an interest in the Note, have never been in possession of the original Note and have no power under the law to transfer ownership and any such attempts are void. Any loan that named MERS as beneficiary or the Only the beneficial owner of the

lenders nominee is at best, an unsecured debt.

original Note or holders in due course would be able to collect on the unsecured debt. 51. Any individuals that executed and notarized forged documents and who were

employees of companies and/or law firms have committed fraud, perjury and forgery.

Claims for Relief Declaratory Relief to Determine an Interest in Property 52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in the

preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein. 53. Plaintiff alleges that at no time did Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust

Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. hold both the Plaintiffs Note and Deed of Trust. 54. Neither Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. nor Nationstar Therefore, any claim of

Mortgage, L.L.C. has standing and the lien is void.

Defendants should be deemed unsecured and the Deed of Trust void and/or satisfied.

Complaint - 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

55.

The lien against the Subject Property evidenced by the Deed of Trust has

no value since it is wholly unsecured and as such, the Deed of Trust and all subsequent assignments are null and void. 56. Plaintiff alleges that she holds an interest in the Subject Property free

and clear of any interest of the defendants based upon the legal principles set forth herein. 57. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants with regard

to the validity, nature and extent of their ownership interests in the Property. 58. It is necessary for this Court to determine and declare rights and

obligations of the parties. 59. Under review by the Arizona Supreme Court are two cases involving these Therefore,

very disputes. (John Hogan v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. (Case No. CV-1-0115)

the issues brought to this Court by Plaintiff are representative of issues affecting the public at large and may be assisted by continuing this instance case until a ruling is issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. That the Court determines the nature and extent and validity of

Defendants interest in the Subject Property owned by the Plaintiff; 2. That the Court determines that the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note that

conveyed interests to Crestar Mortgage are void and unenforceable; 3. That the Court determines the amount and nature of any liens secured by

the Deed of Trust recorded against the Subject Property; 4. 5. unsecured; 6. That the Court determines that at no time relevant hereto did Crestar That the Court determines that the Deed of Trust is null and void; That the Court determines that any liens against the Subject Property are

Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. hold both the Note and Deed of Trust to the Subject Property.

Complaint - 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7.

That the Court determines that Crestar Mortgage, MERS, SunTrust Mortgage,

Inc. or Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. do not having standing and any liens, assignments, or claims are void. 8. That the Court determines that no legal and valid Trustee exists under

the Deed of Trust and therefore, no party has the power of sale by virtue of a Trustees Deed sale and such action would constitute fraud. 9. That the Court determines that all Defendants mentioned herein

participated in fraud by causing to be created or by creating a falsified note and deed of trust or processing falsified assignments of the Deed of Trust. 10. That the self-execution of any Substitution of Trustee or Assignments was

self-serving and constitutes forgery. 11. That the aforementioned conduct of the Defendants was intentional

misrepresentations, deceit, or concealment of material facts known to the Defendants with the intention on the part of the Defendants to thereby deprive the Plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise cause 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. 12. That the conduct of the Defendants constitutes libel that tends to

defame, disparage, and injure Plaintiff in her business and reputation and has also caused pain and suffering. 13. As a result of Defendants acts and omissions, Plaintiff has been injured

in an amount that is yet to be determined. 14. That the conduct of these Defendants as alleged herein was willful, As a result, Plaintiff requests an award of

fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. punitive damages. 15.

That the Court determines which recorded documents represent a cloud upon

the Subject Property and have the same stricken from the land records of Pinal County, Arizona.

Complaint - 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of April, 2012.

Plaintiff

By: _____________________________________ Jennifer Michele Harwood

Complaint - 16