UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ABDIEL ECHEVERRIA & ISABEL SANTAMARIA Plaintiffs, v. DAB BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendants, Case No. 6:10-cv-01933-JA-

THIRD AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs Abdiel Echeverria and Isabel Santamaria (pro se) by and through as counsel, and for their Complaint against Bank of America, N.A., and BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, hereafter referred to together as Defendant, allege as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs are representing themselves (pro se) and purchased their first home on February 29, 2008 with loan assistance from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Their loan was initially serviced by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker until early August 2009 and was then serviced by Defendant BAC,

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Bank of America, N.A. This lawsuit complains not of poor customer service by BAC, but of a systematic home loan servicing scheme that includes loan servicing fraud, embezzlement, threats, hours of telephone runaround, misleading and inconsistent information, lost correspondence, negligence, verbal abuse, and extensive delay, all of which have documented costs not only in terms of money, but in health. The facts in this case also reveal the harsh reality that underlies the loan servicers press statements about loan modifications following the collapse of the U.S. housing market. II. JURISDICTION 2. The court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over the claims arising under 12 U.S.C. 2605 (RESPA).

3. The court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over the claims arising fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 Civil RICO; Organized Crime Control Act; Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and Infliction of Emotional Distress because Plaintiffs claims are so related to the claims within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. 4. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) because the Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The property in question is located in Brevard County, Florida. III. PARTIES 5. Abdiel Echeverria (Brevard County, Florida) and Isabel Santamaria (Brevard County, Florida), Plaintiffs. 6. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association that has its main office located in

North Carolina, United States of America. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. may be served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation, 1200 S. Pine Island Rd. Suite 250, Plantation, Florida 33324.

7. Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is a limited partnership. BAC has only two partners: BANA LP, LLC and BAC GP, LLC. Both partners are wholly owned by Bank of America, N.A., which is a citizen of North Carolina. Therefore, Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is a citizen of North Carolina, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation, at 1200 S. Pine Island Rd. Suite 250, Plantation, Florida 33324.

IV. BACKGROUND 8. Defendant BAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the well-known banking Institution, Bank of America. Defendant BAC performs servicing of home loans for various parties that own the right to receive payments on the loan (holders). These holders are often investors, securitized trusts, or banking institutions that do not have the infrastructure to collect payments from borrowers or, in their business judgment, have found it preferable to use a servicer, such as Defendant BAC. The exact type of servicing that a servicer performs is often controlled by private contract or government regulation, depending on the type of loan. However, servicing generally includes such functions as collecting payments, communicating with borrowers on the holders behalf, and in some cases, administering a foreclosure.

9. In some instances, federal and state governments also impose requirements on loan servicers. In some cases, these requirements have been incorporated contractually in to Plaintiffs loan documents, and in addition, these requirements provide helpful background in understanding the functions that Defendant BAC has agreed to perform on behalf of loan holders/investors, and demonstrate a clear federal policy in favor of preserving home ownership when feasible where loans of the type that Plaintiffs

have obtained (FHA) are involved. 10. Plaintiffs have a home loan that is insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The Plaintiffs pay a monthly premium to the FHA to insure their mortgages against the risk of default, which provides an incentive to lenders to offer loans to borrowers that otherwise might not be qualified for the loan. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releases mortgagee letters describing the obligations of those servicing FHA insured loans. Mortgagee Letter 2000-05 describes a program called Loss Mitigation that gives lenders and servicers both the authority and the responsibility to utilize actions and strategies to assist borrowers in default in retaining their homes, and/or in reducing losses to FHAs insurance funds. The Mortgagee Letter further provides in bold capitalized letters, PARTICIPATION IN THE LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAM IS NOT OPTIONAL. 11. Moreover, Defendant BAC had agreed to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which is a federal program introduced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to assist at-risk homeowners restructure their mortgages to avoid foreclosure. See Home Affordable Modification Program, Supplemental Directive 09-01, Apr. 6, 2009, available at: https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/docs/hamp_servicer/sd0901.pdf. Under the terms of the program, the Treasury Department provides financial incentives for banks to reduce homeowners monthly mortgage payments to sustainable levels. See Home Affordable Modification Program Guidelines, March 4, 2009, available at: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/modification_program_guidelines.pdf, (hereinafter HAMP Guidelines). Defendant BAC states in their website: www.bankofamerica.com under Home Loan Assistance the following: Let's work together to keep you in your home. Help is available for homeowners experiencing payment difficulties, and we're committed to connecting you with a solution, if we can, that can help you stay in your home. No matter what your situation is,

we're here to help. This statement could not be further from the truth. Defendant BAC received bailout funds (tax payer money) in the amount of $45 billion dollars and to date have the lowest percentage rate for loan modifications of all banks. 12. In order to participate in HAMP, loan servicers must execute a servicer participation agreement with Fannie Mae as agent for the Treasury Department (HAMP Supplemental Directive 09-01 at 1). Although, decisions about whether to modify the original terms of a mortgage (such as by reducing the interest rate or extending the term of the loan) are generally governed by the private contract between a lender and a borrower, the HAMP guidelines place heightened requirements on participating servicers to modify the original terms of mortgage loans in certain circumstances described by the program.

V. FACTS 13. On February 29, 2008, Plaintiff, Abdiel Echeverria along with his spouse, Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria, took out a federally-insured home loan in the amount of $144,079.00 from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker which included cash from Borrowers (Plaintiffs) of $23,998.24 for the total purchase price of $167,000.00 for home located on 499 Cellini Ave NE, Palm Bay, Florida 32907. The Plaintiffs continued to make upgrades and necessary repairs after the home was purchased and have spent over $50,000.00 in such upgrades and repairs to date. RESPA 14. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs loan was transferred to BAC (Bank of America) in September 2009 after the original lender TB&W (Taylor Bean & Whitaker) went bankrupt. Plaintiffs were not aware of this transfer or of this bankruptcy until their bi-weekly mortgage program Equity-

Plus advised them on the telephone that they incorrectly submitted the September 2009 payment to TB&W because they were also not aware of the transfer. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria proceeded to call the new servicer/mortgage company Bank of America (BAC) and requested the new loan number so that the payments can be properly submitted to them. (2nd Amend. Compl. 21) 15. Plaintiffs submitted numerous letters to the Defendant that requested clarification on their mortgage account, loan modification application, mortgage note and escrow account. In addition to these requests, Plaintiffs attorney at the time (Philip J. Healy) submitted a Qualified Written Request (QWR) (attached as Exhibit A-1) on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Attorney Angela Sigman submitted a Demand Letter (see Exhibit BE filed with Original Complaint) which also requested that the Defendant Bank of America (BAC) take appropriate actions in correcting the Plaintiffs payment and escrow account and to assist them with a loan modification. The Defendant refused to comply. 16. On July 10, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a qualified written request via certified mail to Defendant BAC so that they can submit a copy of the original Promissory Note and confirmation of who actually hold the original wet ink Note to their mortgage (see Exhibit AZ filed with Original Complaint) . After the Plaintiff requested an acknowledgement of the QWR dated July 10, 2010 via email, Bank of America acknowledged receipt of this qualified written request and states that loan is old and therefore the documents are not scanned in their system (see Exhibit BA filed with Original Complaint). At the time, this loan was only a little over two (2) years old and this statement is clearly false. Plaintiff is later told by Defendant BAC via email that their Note will be sent. A few days later Plaintiff receives something that looks like a statement with details about their loan. Plaintiff then complains via email again (see Exhibit BA & BB filed with Original Complaint). This is not the Promissory Note that Plaintiff had requested. This notice also continues to state that Plaintiff continued to be several payments behind by stating that last paid installment was on April 1, 2010. Furthermore, Defendant is charging Plaintiffs $5.00 for this Notice which is not what the Plaintiff requested even

though BAC insists otherwise. Finally, a copy of the original signed Promissory Note was sent to Plaintiff. This was dated October 22, 2010. Plaintiff fails to understand why this took so long (over 3 months) and where did the Defendant actually obtain this copy of the Note. According to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) laws, the Defendants were supposed to acknowledge the Plaintiffs written request within 20 days and produce the note (resolve the issues) within 60 days. They produced a copy of the Note more than 90 days later in violation of RESPA.

Loan Modification Misrepresentations 17. On January 12, 2010, Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria was told by BAC (Bank of America) representative named Tolana (name given by the female representative) that they pre-qualified for a loan modification. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria was very happy to hear the good news given by the Bank of America representative and told almost everyone she knew. Previously, Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria had already made several attempts to qualify for loan modification assistance but was denied for different reasons every time she called. The final reason why she was told they did not qualify on October 15, 2009 was that they were not behind on their payments. That was the only reason at that time for which they did not qualify because at that time, they met the income criteria. According to the female representative, Plaintiffs cannot prove hardship unless they default. Therefore, in order to fully meet the criteria for the loan modification the Plaintiffs were asked to default on their mortgage. Plaintiffs were concerned about missing a payment but were desperate and therefore missed a payment for November 2009 (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 24). The Plaintiffs relied on Bank of Americas representations and therefore took no further action after all documents were submitted and were anxiously awaiting a response from Bank of America regarding their new payment amount. Plaintiffs had no idea what lied ahead for just missing this one payment: a scheme of deception and misrepresentation was brewing.

18. For many months following the loan modification application, most written communications and financial documents submitted to the Defendant regarding Plaintiffs loan modification were intentionally lost or misplaced (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 27, 49, 50, 51 & 52). Plaintiff submitted via fax and mail the requested documents several times and has proof (see Exhibits AD & AH filed with the Original Complaint) that she submitted them. In March 2012, a whistleblower lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. (BAC) concerning mortgage loan modifications was unsealed in federal court, which said it was the second whistleblower complaint "with apparent ties" to a $1 billion False Claims Act settlement with Bank of America announced in February 2012. The complaint was filed by Gregory Mackler, who worked alongside Bank of America executives on loan modifications while employed at Urban Lending Solutions. Mackler alleged that Defendant Bank of America and its loan servicing unit BAC Homes Loans Servicing LP improperly prevented homeowners from becoming eligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program. Defendant Bank of America let through just enough HAMP modifications to avert suspicion and allay congressional critics, while not enough to incur any substantial losses to its own bottom line, according to the complaint. Defendant Bank of America (BAC) has continued to maximize the value of its mortgage portfolio with anti-HAMP modification practices and managed to make money by committing fraud on homeowners," the lawsuit said. The case is United States of America v. Bank of America NA et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-3270. In February 2012, a whistleblower complaint was unsealed from Kyle Lagow, a former employee in a Countrywide appraisal unit which detailed allegations of Countrywide's "corrupt underwriting and appraisal process." Bank of America purchased Countywide in June 2008. The Plaintiffs complained of these same issues as Mr. Mackler alleges in their Second Amended Verified Complaint and the alternatives in regards to Defendant Bank of Americas fraudulent loan modification practices and provided numerous exhibits (see Exhibits P, S, AU, AV, AW, AY, BE, BG, BL, & BN filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint) to substantiate their claims (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 50).

19. When Plaintiffs called Defendant BAC, the information they received over the telephone often conflicted with written statements or prior telephone conversations. In many of the telephone calls Defendant BAC spun Plaintiffs in a labyrinth of transfers from one department to another and back again. Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) spent countless hours on the telephone, explaining their story to a different person each time they called; often she was transferred between departments, knowing she would never speak to the same person again, and knowing that the information being provided would be contradicted by the next person they spoke with. It became a vicious web of lies. 20. Plaintiff receives a letter from Defendant BAC dated July 22, 2010 that request for assistance, along with your personal financial information has been received . This letter also confirms the receipt of the letter faxed to Defendant BAC on July 20, 2010. On this same letter from BAC, Defendant states under What You Need to Do: Please be aware that receipt of your documentation starts the review process, which may take up to 45 days to complete. Plaintiff is left confused by this statement and asks herself: Didnt our loan modification process already start on February 5, 2010 when Defendant BAC initially received our documentation? and Why has it taken so long when it should take no more than 45 days to complete as per this letter? and How many times has BAC started my review process considering the fact that we already sent all our documents many times already? By this time, more than six (6) months have gone by with no results on a loan modification and Plaintiffs continued to fall deeper into debt due to these misrepresentations while awaiting a positive outcome. 21. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria was desperate and called the Hope Hotline (888-995-HOPE) in order to get some type of assistance on June 21, 2010. Plaintiff speaks with Sarah McCoy. Plaintiff expresses her concerns regarding Bank of America and her loan modification. Sarah McCoy calls Bank of America with the Plaintiff on the line. Sarah McCoy was told by a representative named Caleb that the Plaintiffs file was in the Office of the President obviously due to the Plaintiffs complaint filed with the Attorney General. Caleb then transferred the call to the Office of the President. Misha (Meesha) Smith in

the Office of the President answered the call. Mrs. McCoy began to ask Mrs. Smith questions regarding the Plaintiffs loan modification. Mrs. Smith said that she had no information. Nothing was mentioned about a Special Forbearance or any other program. Plaintiff then jumps in and starts asking about her account issues and Mrs. Smith also states that she has no information but that the account is currently being investigated and she (Mrs. Smith) assured them that there will be a resolution by the following week. Plaintiff was told by Sarah McCoy that this phone call was recorded. Plaintiff continued to wait and she never received a resolution as promised by Mrs. Smith for many weeks or months after that call. Mrs. Smith in the Bank Presidents Office misrepresented statements to the Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria and to Sarah McCoy. 22. After many months of lies, so-called mistakes, misrepresentations and lost documentation, the Plaintiffs receive a loan modification denial letter dated September 27, 2010 (see Exhibit BL filed with Original Complaint). The reason given was truly deceitful considering the fact that the Plaintiffs have proof that they submitted documents as requested several times (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 65). It later became apparent to the Plaintiffs that the loan modification process with the Defendant was just a malicious scheme to cause the Plaintiffs to default and foreclose on them. 23. Mr. Scott McDaniel (Customer Advocate, Office of the CEO & President), misrepresented the facts regarding the Plaintiffs loan modification status and documents, payments, escrow account and qualified written requests (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 68 and Exhibit BN filed with the Original Complaint) in a letter dated November 24, 2010. This letter was addressed to Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria and additional letters were submitted and addressed to the Attorney General of Florida Bill McCollum, OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), and Congressman Bill Posey. In addition to this letter addressed to the Plaintiff, the government officials implicated, as mentioned above, were sent copies of a questionnaire in which the Defendants Customer Advocate Scott McDaniel, incorrectly

answers many statements regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs only acquired this questionnaire because Congressman Bill Posey forwarded it to them via mail. It was not the intention of the Defendant Bank of America that the Plaintiffs would see these answers (most of them false) to the investigation conducted by the OCC, which is a federal agency. 24. The Plaintiffs complied with all of the Defendants requirements and instructions in order to receive loan assistance which also became costly however, they were intentionally mislead and deceived in every possible way. The Plaintiffs financial situation was dire and the Plaintiffs honestly thought at first that everything would be okay and that they would have lower payments soon in order to accommodate their new lower-income lifestyle with autistic children. This so-called assistance could not be farther from the truth. The Defendant continued to intentionally delay the process knowing very well that if the Plaintiffs were required to continue making their regular payments, they would fall further and further into default and would lose their home.

Payments, Threats & Fraud 25. In late 2009 to early 2010, Plaintiffs realized many discrepancies with their mortgage payments. At first they thought it may be due to the new loan transfer but that was not the issue (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, & 39). In May 2010, Plaintiffs Attorney requested the payment history for their client (the Plaintiffs) from Defendant Bank of America. Attorney Angela Sigman called Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) and asked her why she sent three (3) payments on the same day (April 20, 2010) instead of these three (3) payments being applied on the correct months (early February, March & April) in which they were sent (see Exhibit T filed with the Original Complaint). Plaintiffs Attorney asked this because she was advised previously by the Plaintiff that she continued to pay her mortgage and was submitting payments every month to Bank of America. Plaintiff was shocked

and extremely upset with this information because they had submitted a payment for each month (even if it was a financial burden) and their payment history was saying otherwise (see Exhibit AS filed with the Original Complaint). Defendant Bank of America continued to apply payments incorrectly to Plaintiffs account and in addition added ridiculously high fees even though payments were sent by the Plaintiffs every month. In addition, the Defendant falsely represented the amounts owed by the Plaintiffs to the credit bureaus and HUD (U.S. Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development). Plaintiffs fell into deep personal debt by asking for monetary loans from family members and withdrawals of Plaintiff Abdiel Echeverrias 401k in order to pay for their mortgage (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 74). These extraordinary efforts by the Plaintiffs who were relying on the Defendants representations were in vain because no matter what the Plaintiffs did in order to continue making their payments (see 2nd Amend. Compl. 60), the Defendant continued to provide false account, loan modification and escrow information to the Plaintiffs and others involved. 26. Plaintiffs received numerous Notices of Intent to Accelerate mailed by the Defendants, which purpose was to threaten the Plaintiffs with foreclosure if they did not pay an exuberant amount of money that they did not owe (and knew that they could obviously not pay) by a specified date (see Exhibits O, AN, AO, AP, AQ, & AR filed with Original Complaint). This deliberate action could be classified as the intent to extortion. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion. As a crime of theft, extortion is closely related to Robbery and False Pretenses. Extortion is also a federal offense when it interferes with interstate commerce. It is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. The Defendant (Bank of America) tried to extort money from the Plaintiffs so that in return they would not lose their property. This is theft. The Defendant knew very well that the Plaintiffs were suffering hardship because the Plaintiffs advised them several times via mail (see attached Letter dated March 19, 2010 labeled as

Exhibit A-7), email (see Exhibits AT, AU, AX, BE filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint) and telephone conversations and the Defendant took advantage of this situation. In addition, it is unclear if the Defendant had the legal right to obtain said property. A professional forensic analysis is currently being conducted on the Plaintiffs mortgage which includes a compliance review (includes RESPA, TILA, FDCPA, Section 5 of the FTC Act, HOEPA, which covers high cost loans, Consumer Protection Act and any state statutes, and UCC violations), appraisal examination, mortgage securitization, pooling and servicing agreements, and Trust. This report will be available for trial. 27. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria was told over the phone and via mail communication several times that they owed more than they actually did. The one month that the Plaintiffs initially missed (November 2009) suddenly became a four (4) month default. This is apparently what Bank of America intended because it would meet the criteria for FHA loans acceleration policy so that they can proceed with foreclosing on the Plaintiffs. However, in an act of desperation and anguish, Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria began to write letters to government officials and later to the media asking for help. She wanted them to take appropriate actions against Bank of America. These actions by the Plaintiff caused numerous investigations on the Plaintiffs account at the request of the Florida Attorney General and Congressman Bill Posey. The Defendant Bank of America intentionally delayed and hindered the investigations regarding the Plaintiffs complaints. 28. Southern Essex Register of Deeds John OBrien has garnered national attention by accusing big banks of acting like a criminal enterprise. After an audit revealed widespread flaws in banks handling of mortgage paperwork, OBrien likened his Salem registry to a crime scene. As per Mr. OBrien, Defendant Bank of America is one of the banks that displayed the most criminal activity when it came to handling and filing mortgage documents such as Assignments of Mortgage. The Plaintiffs have fell victim to such a wire fraud crime when the Defendant filed and recorded a forged Assignment of Mortgage signed by well-known robo-signer and so-called MERS Assistant Secretary, Malik Basurto

(Plaintiffs Assignment of Mortgage attached as Exhibit A-2). For comparison, Plaintiff has also attached other Assignments of Mortgage (which are public records) also signed by Malik Basurto and requested by Defendant Bank of America just like in the case of the Plaintiffs. The signatures on all of these documents are different and no can expect to believe that this is the same person (see other attached examples of Assignment of Mortgages labeled as Exhibit A-3). 29. Plaintiffs were blind-sided by the Defendant with numerous threats and misrepresentations. Plaintiffs were not aware that even though they continued to pay their mortgage and were in the process of obtaining a loan modification, that they would be threatened with foreclosure and harassed in every imaginable way. It would be unreasonable to believe that the Defendant Bank of America should abuse their very own customers in such a way and suffer no repercussions for their intentional wicked conduct. 30. The Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) spoke to numerous Bank of America representatives (so many that she was not able to keep track of all the names) who contradicted one another and or relayed misrepresentations to the Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria over the telephone. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria spoke to Debbie Daniels in the Hope Department (1-877-643-2788) in January 2010 regarding the loan modification and the Notice of Intent to Accelerate. Plaintiff was advised to ignore the Notice and just throw it away. Mrs. Daniels also provided the Plaintiff with fax number where she can submit loan modification documents (1-888-491-4947 and 1-800-658-0355) which were non-working numbers at the time. Debbie Daniels was friendly, unlike other Bank of America representatives and did provide however, a correct mailing address for the Plaintiff to submit required documentation. 31. Isabel Santamaria also spoke to Bank of America representative Sherrie (1-800-669-6650) regarding the loan modification on January 15, 2010 and was provided with inconsistent information. 32. After being told by Sherrie and numerous other representatives over the phone on January 15, 2010 that the Plaintiffs had a $1,000.00 deficit on their escrow account, representative Jessica Garza

confirmed that same day what the Plaintiffs already knew, that they had a surplus of over $800.00 not a deficit as misrepresented by mail correspondence and by the other representatives Plaintiff had spoken to that day (January 15, 2010). 33. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria spoke to Bank of America representative Kimberly (Kim) Romero on February 1, 2010 to discuss escrow, homeowners insurance, partial balance, payment postings and payments for August 2009 that Bank of America continued to say that they did not receive. Plaintiff advised representative Romero that she was aware that payment for November 2009 was not sent due to financial hardship and in order to comply with loan modification requirements to default in order to prove hardship as requested by other representatives. So far, Plaintiff was not happy with the outcome but was not able to finish the conversation because she was disconnected. 34. Plaintiff spoke to representative (code name: SMANDAVK) on February 17, 2010 and advised that she was facing financial hardship and was very upset at all the inconsistencies regarding her payments, escrow and loan modification. 35. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria called Defendant Bank of America on March 11, 2010 and became extremely upset again at the information provided by the representative that day. This was confirmed by email response from Defendant (see Exhibit AU filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint). By this time the Plaintiff was irate most of the times she called and started having blood pressure issues, severe anxiety episodes and other symptoms she had not experienced before during and after every call. She was consistently being threatened with foreclosure on almost every call. 36. Defendant Bank of America Customer Advocate Claudia De Leon advises the Plaintiffs that they will require that documents be submitted again for the loan modification, letter dated April 21, 2010 (see Exhibit AY filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint). The Plaintiff had already submitted documents in their entirety four (4) times previously. Furthermore, Plaintiffs had recently received a letter from the Defendant dated March 31, 2010 that all documents for assistance were received (see Exhibit

AV filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint). Nevertheless, the Defendant and their agents kept harassing the Plaintiffs for documents that were recently submitted and completely ignored the fact that the Plaintiffs had legal representation further causing unnecessary aggravation and stress to the Plaintiffs. 37. As mentioned previously, Plaintiffs had no other alternative than to hire legal representation in late March 2010 because she was having health issues related to the stress and abuse that the Defendant was bringing upon her. She could no longer handle this on her own and at the time she did not know why. By this time (March 2010), Plaintiff was complaining about the abuse and misrepresentation several times over the phone, via letters and emails to the Defendant (see Exhibits AT, AU filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint). 38. On June 21, 2010, Misha (Meesha) Smith in the Office of the President at Bank of America mislead the Plaintiff over the phone with Mrs. Sarah McCoy (Hope Hotline) on the line. Ms. Smith assured the Plaintiff and Ms. McCoy that the investigation conducted on her account would be completed the following week and she would be advised immediately regarding the findings. Plaintiffs waited not one week but instead many months for the conclusion of this internal investigation in which nothing was resolved but nevertheless the unnecessary wait and uncertainty caused the Plaintiffs distress. The Plaintiffs relied on Ms. Smiths misrepresentations. Escrow 39. Plaintiff noticed on escrows Step by Step Analysis printed on 10/3/2010 from Defendant Bank of Americas website (see Exhibit E filed with Original Complaint), that Bank of America initiates (beginning balance) the Plaintiffs escrow account in August 2009 with a substantially less amount than it really was. It was more than a $1,000.00 difference. In review, on Escrow Account Review dated 10/09/2009 (see Exhibit K filed with Original Complaint), beginning balance on escrow is $3,844.29. In addition there is also an escrow shortage on this statement of $1,039.95 being charged to

the Plaintiff as well which is a major discrepancy. On Escrow Account Review dated 11/10/2009 (see Exhibit L filed with Original Complaint), starting balance for escrow is $3,394.39. On Escrow Account Review dated 12/22/2009 (see Exhibit M filed with Original Complaint), starting balance for escrow is now $2,406.79. For Escrow Account Review dated 01/15/2010 (see Exhibit N filed with Original Complaint), Beginning Balance is now $1,362.78. The beginning balance for escrow, when the Defendant acquired the Plaintiffs mortgage, is never supposed to change only the current balances for the current months can change. It was apparent that when Bank of America acquired the mortgage in September 2009, the escrow money was embezzled and the initial balance was manipulated to appear less than what was actually transferred from the Plaintiffs escrow account with TB&W. In addition, for the month of December 2009, no escrow payment was applied to the Plaintiffs escrow account which would make their escrow account less than it was actually supposed to be (see Exhibits AS & BP filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint). The Plaintiffs monthly payment of $1,215.76 was supposed to be split in four ways: principle ($155.00+), interest ($730.00+), escrow ($397.46) and mortgage insurance ($51.38). Therefore, where is the remainder of the principle and interest that was supposed to be applied to the Plaintiffs account since no escrow payment was posted for that month? Payment was applied as miscellaneous and never corrected or divided properly even after the Plaintiff notified.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION Count One: Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as thought fully rewritten herein.

41. Defendant BAC is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan within the meaning of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605. Defendant BACs conduct has violated RESPA in the following respects:

42. Plaintiffs Abdiel Echeverria & Isabel Santamaria sent Defendant BAC qualified written requests individually or with the assistance of legal representation within the meaning of RESPA, in that Plaintiffs sought information about their mortgage account, eligibility for a loan modification or other methods to minimize their losses. The loan servicer has no more than 60 business days after receiving the borrowers request to correct these errors on the borrower loan account or the loan servicing company must provide the borrower a written clarification disputing such error. Defendant Bank of America failed to do so. 43. Plaintiffs did not receive the requested documentation (Note) or confirmation of who is the true holder of such document within the RESPA sixty (60) day requirement and acknowledgment by the Defendant was received after 20 days. 44. Defendant BAC failed to send notice of transfer of loan servicing to Plaintiffs within 15 days after the effective date of transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan, in violation of 12 U.S.C. 2605(c). 45. Plaintiffs damages were proximately caused by Defendant BACs noncompliance with the requirements of the mortgage servicer provisions of RESPA. Defendant BAC has engaged in a pattern and practice of non-compliance with the requirements of the mortgage servicer provisions of RESPA, and Plaintiffs seek $1,000 in statutory damages per violation pursuant to 2605 (c), servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts.

Count Two: Fraudulent Misrepresentation 46. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as thought fully rewritten herein. 47. Plaintiffs claim that Bank of America induced them into a default position, and this is part of a scheme of fraud and deception. There also exists significant cash flows that have been provided by government agencies to compensate banks who acquire portfolios of toxic assets (i.e. Bank of America assuming Countrywides portfolio), as well as performance guarantees that kick in if certain default targets are met. Finally, other government programs have provided public funding to the banks for the expressed purpose of modifying loans. (One Georgia judge has already found a bank guilty of accepting billions of dollars in HAMP money, but not following through on modifications as agreed (see Otis Wayne Phillips vs. U.S. Bank, NA Case #11-CV-00504)) Apparently, illogical foreclosure actions by the

banks, may in fact be profit-maximizing strategies given the public and hidden agreements that exist behind the scenes. 48. Rule 9(b) requires Plaintiffs to plead with particularity the circumstances of the alleged fraud in order to place the Defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged, and to safeguard defendants against spurious charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior. It is certainly true that allegations of date, place, or time fulfill these functions, but nothing in the Rule requires them. Plaintiffs are free to use alternative means of injecting precision and some measure of substantiation into their allegation of fraudThe complaint sets forth the nature of the alleged misrepresentations, while it does not describe the precise words used, each allegation of fraud adequately describes the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentation. (Seville Indus. Machinery v. Southmost Machinery, 742 F. 2d 786 Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit) 49. Nevertheless, Bank of America made the following misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs: a) Promising to act upon requests for mortgage modifications within a specific period of time, usually one or two months, but instead stranding the Plaintiffs and other consumers without answers for more than six months or even a year; b) Falsely assuring the Plaintiffs that their home would not be in jeopardy of foreclosure while their requests for modifications were pending, but sending Acceleration Notices threatening the Plaintiffs that they will lose their home if money that was not owed wasnt paid; c) Misrepresenting the eligibility criteria for modifications and providing the Plaintiffs with inaccurate and deceptive reasons for ultimately denying their requests for modifications; d) Misrepresenting by informing and advising Plaintiffs to default in order to prove financial hardship to qualify for a loan modification. e) Misrepresenting that the Plaintiffs have been approved for a loan modification. f) Defendant Bank of Americas Scott McDaniel misrepresented to the Plaintiffs and government officials in writing (material fact) the reasons why the Plaintiffs were denied a loan modification and then informed that the Plaintiffs were in a trial modification and being considered for a permanent one in the same letter. Plaintiffs were unable to make payments by this time and therefore a trial loan modification would be unrealistic. Mr. McDaniels statements were contradictory.

g) Defendant Bank of Americas Customer Advocate Scott McDaniel misrepresented statements in writing to the Plaintiffs and government officials that corrections were made to the Plaintiffs Payment History when in reality nothing was corrected. h) Defendant Bank of Americas Customer Advocate Scott McDaniel misrepresented statements in writing to the Plaintiffs and government officials by stating that Plaintiffs never submitted qualified written requests. i) Falsely informing all Credit Bureaus and HUD about the amount the Plaintiffs actually owed. j) Defendants Craig Jernigan (Office of the President) provided inconsistent statements to the Plaintiffs attorney at the time, Angela Sigman, regarding Plaintiffs payment status and partial payments on two separate occasions. 50. Defendants misrepresentations were intentional, reckless, or negligent. 51. Defendants misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs were material. 52. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs would rely on those misrepresentations. 53. Plaintiffs reliance on the Defendants misrepresentations were thus to their detriment and they suffered monetary, emotional, physical, and other damages as a result.

Count Three: Violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seg.

54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein. 55. This is an action for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seg. 56. Alleged violations committed by the Defendant BAC (Bank of America) are as follows: a). Mail Fraud. Plaintiffs received via U.S. Mail many material communications from the Defendant BAC (Bank of America) which included threats with the intent to extort the Plaintiffs out of their home if they did not pay an amount of money not owed by them. Plaintiffs

were sent misrepresentations via U.S. Mail regarding their payments, escrow and loan modification application/status. Section 18 USC Section 1341 provides that "whoever, having devised . . . any scheme or artifice to defraud. . . for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice . . . places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . .." Unlike common law fraud, it is not necessary that the mailing itself contain a misrepresentation (United States v. McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245, 1249 (8th Cir. 1976). Defendant BAC (Bank of America) consistently schemes to defraud homeowners by mailing misrepresentations regarding loan modifications, accelerations and utilizes this service to carry out loan servicing fraud. b). Wire Fraud. 18 U.S.C. Section 1341. The four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire

fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme."). Defendant BAC (Bank of America) requested the preparation and filing of an Assignment of Mortgage recorded with the Clerk of Courts, Brevard County which was a perjured notarized document containing a forged signature of socalled MERS Assistant Secretary Malik Basurto. This is not an individual occurrence. The Defendant has filed thousands of perjured documents via wire and only a few examples are actually able to be provided with this Complaint. c). Theft. Defendant stole, converted, and/or misappropriated portions of Plaintiffs escrow and mortgage payment accounts for their beneficial interest. Defendants misconduct is outrageous, a conscious and deliberate disregard of Plaintiffs rights, a conscious and deliberate disregard of the rights of customers that hold mortgages with the Defendant and/or their accounts and a fraud on the public in general. The Defendant BAC (Bank of America) intentionally manipulated the Plaintiffs escrow account balances for their financial gain. Plaintiffs also viewed these everchanging beginning escrow balances (for the same month of the transfer) with online versions of their account statements. (Chapter 812, Florida Statutes, relating to theft; (1)(a)(22.) Chapter 817, Florida Statutes, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud generally; (1)(a) (27.) Chapter 837, relating to perjury). The Defendant also had a monetary interest in Plaintiffs property. d). Forgery. Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive. When the object forged is a record or document it is often called a false document. Defendant Bank of America forged an Assignment of Mortgage executed on July 18, 2011 (almost 2 years after the mortgage transfer took place). This false document was then recorded in the Clerk of Courts, Brevard County at the request of the Defendant Bank of America on July 20, 2011. This also constitutes in wire fraud which is a

federal crime. On April 3, 2011, CBS' 60 MINUTES aired a segment titled The Next Housing Shock showing massive fraud by banks and mortgage-backed trusts in foreclosures. The segment focused on one particular document mill, Docx, LLC, owned by Lender Processing Services, Inc., a company that works for over 51 banks. One former employee confessed to forging 4,000 documents each day. Vice President Linda Green signed these mortgage assignment documents with several different signatures (i.e. Malik Basurto). Which bank/trustees most often used the Docx forged documents in foreclosures? Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Bank of America were the top five users of these forged documents, but other banks were also involved. These forged documents were also repeatedly transmitted and filed electronically in courts within the state of Florida and throughout the country by the Defendant and their attorneys to illegally foreclose on thousands of homes. 57. The RICO statutes do not identify the characteristics of an "enterprise". Section 1961(4) only provides that an enterprise "includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." Defendant BAC (Bank of America) is an enterprise and as an enterprise has a common goal and the Defendant participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. (Williams, 465 F. 3d at 1283-84). Defendants conduct and common goal is clearly defined throughout this complaint. Defendant Bank of Americas (BAC) predicate acts is a regular way of doing business and identifies a pattern. 58. In addition, the RICO conspiracy statute requires only that the defendant intended to further criminal conduct that would violate RICO's substantive prohibitions. Thus, a RICO conspirator need not have committed or agreed to commit the underlying predicate acts so long as, if the conspiracy's objective was accomplished, two predicate acts would be committed and the statute would be violated. To state a claim for civil RICO conspiracy after Salinas, a plaintiff arguably need only show that the

defendant intended to facilitate a scheme that, if completed, would satisfy the elements of RICO. The defendant could be liable for RICO conspiracy even if somebody else were intended to commit the predicate acts, and even if the substantive crimes were never completed. It is unlawful to conspire to perform these acts (18 U.S.C. 1962(d) (1982)). 59. As further set forth herein, the RICO Defendants who were employed by and associated with the enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity including but not limited to a nationalized pattern of filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting false and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with all applicable foreclosure laws. 60. While RICO is primarily a criminal statute, it also provides for civil remedies, including a cause of action for treble damages, available to [a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962. 18 U.S.C. 1964(d) (1982). Section 1964(C) provides that any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of Section 1962 may bring a RICO action. Section 1961(3) specifically defines a "person" to include any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in the property. 61. The Plaintiffs, specifically Isabel Santamaria, was injured in her property when bombarded with threats via mail communication (mail fraud) and harassing telephone calls made to her home telephone number. The Plaintiffs emotional and physical symptoms were displayed and initiated on her property (see 2nd Amend. Ver. Compl. 43 & 47). Plaintiff, Isabel Santamaria was self-employed and used her home as a place of business. Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria greatly diminished her ability to work the hours needed to sustain a minimal income since the onset of her injuries and has not been able to work at all since May 2011 due to her injuries caused by Defendant BAC (Bank of America). 62. As set forth above, the Defendants intentionally manufactured a scheme to defraud

homeowners on a nationalized level whereby the Defendants, through the use of the U.S. Mail, public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and fraudulent documents relating to the Plaintiffs Assignment of Mortgage in which the recording of such was requested by the Defendant Bank of America itself, doing so through perjured documents and material misrepresentations with the specific intent to commit theft of residential real property. As stated above in 28 of this 3rd Amended Ver. Complaint , the signature for so-called Assistant Secretary for MERS Malik Basurto who is also presumed to have a different title (investigated by Attorney Lynn Szymoniak, Palm Beach, Florida) and is actually employed by the Defendant, is a forgery for there are many distinctly different signatures for Malik Basurto as can be observed by the exhibits filed with this Complaint. 63. As set forth above, the Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendants representations (as any reasonably and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs to suffer specific monetary, emotional and physical damages. 64. The actions of the Defendants were specifically directed to the named Plaintiffs herein. In order for the Defendant to accomplish their malicious objective, the Defendant developed and were part of an enterprise, which consisted of the Defendant, their executives and their agents including but not limited to various law Firms and Trustee Sale companies, which worked together and in concert at the direction of the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the pattern of criminal activity set forth herein, including notary fraud and a regular pattern and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public records to institute and further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners. In this case, the Defendant has a monetary beneficial interest in the Plaintiffs property as noted herein on the Assignment of Mortgage which states that the Assignor transferred and conveyed all beneficial interest to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. 65. When a RICO claim is based upon violations of federal criminal statutes (see 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B)), the nexus with interstate commerce is necessarily established by the commission of the

underlying federal crimes. See United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 767 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that the government / plaintiff need only prove that Hobbs Act extortion potentially affected interstate commerce). Moreover, because the U.S. Constitution confers the postal powers upon the federal government, acts of mail fraud, even intrastate use of the mails, have an inherent nexus with interstate commerce. United States v. Elliott, 89 F.3d 1360 (8th Cir. 1996). Because violations of the mail fraud statute are alleged in this RICO complaint, a nexus with interstate commerce should be present. 66. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plusrelationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. Defendants illegal and deceptive business practices are nationally known and repeated throughout the country. 67. Plaintiffs have satisfied a federal RICO violation under 1962 (c) by establishing the four elements of proof: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity by establishing at least two acts of distinct but related predicate acts of racketeering activity occurring within a prescribed time period (Williams, 465 F. 3d at 1283-84). 68. The Plaintiffs will provide the court with Notarized Affidavits by other BAC (Bank of America) victims that will include their similar negative experiences with the Defendant along with their loan account information and many will be available to testify in court. This will also authenticate: RICO violations under 1962 (c) by establishing the four elements of proof: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity by establishing at least two acts of distinct but related predicate acts of racketeering activity occurring within a prescribed time period.

69. These predicate acts are related. They share a common purpose, defrauding the Plaintiffs and other borrowers of their money and property. They share the common themes of non-documentation and concealment of the real parties in interest. 70. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover threefold the damages they sustain or have sustained and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys fees. 71. As alleged, Plaintiffs have been injured in their business or property by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).

Count Four: Infliction of Emotional Distress 72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein. 73. Defendant BAC (Bank of America) improperly serviced Plaintiffs loan in a manner that caused emotional distress by, inter alia and as more fully set out above: threatening with foreclosure over the phone and by mail if Plaintiffs did not pay a large amount that was not owed; manipulating the Plaintiffs payment and escrow accounts; threatening to deny or delay loan modifications in which documents were intentionally requested in a very short period of time that was almost impossible; telling Plaintiffs to sell their home or to rent out part of their home (see 2nd Amend. Ver. Compl. 45); telling the Plaintiffs that there was nothing they can do and it was up to the investor when the Defendant was in fact legally obligated to make loan modifications; requiring the Plaintiffs to repeatedly correct their budget information and resubmit paperwork and financial documents; telling the Plaintiffs they were denied for a loan modification for not submitting documents when in reality the Plaintiffs complied with all requirements including timely submission of all required documentation; repeatedly losing or misplacing Plaintiffs personal and financial documentation that included social

security numbers for all family members in the household, dates of birth, utility bill information, income tax returns, address and income to name a few; mishandling phone calls; disconnecting phone calls after the Plaintiff spent a long amount of valuable time on the call (sometimes hours); repeatedly transferring the Plaintiffs calls like if it was a game of hot potato; refusing to transfer to supervisors; mishandling phone calls and rerouting to incorrect departments which only prolonged the hold time; telling Plaintiffs that they would soon have an answer in no more than 45 days regarding their loan modification application only to prolong and request documents all over again; telling Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) to miss payments (default) which was only in the Defendants best interest and to the detriment of the Plaintiffs; harassing the Plaintiffs with letters and phone calls after Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) advised the Defendant of her ongoing emotional and health issues due to their abuse (see Exhibits AU and emails to Brian Moynihan AX filed with Plaintiffs Original Complaint); harassing the Plaintiffs with many phone calls a day, even after having legal representation and advising them to call their attorney because they no longer wanted to be called or harassed; causing Plaintiffs to scavenge for money from family members and withdrawing all monies from Plaintiff Abdiel Echeverrias 401k retirement plan in order to continue paying their mortgage relying on Defendants promises when the Defendants scheme all along was to remove the Plaintiffs and their autistic children from their home. 74. Defendant BAC (Bank of America) acted intentionally, recklessly, knowingly, and/or negligently in causing Plaintiffs emotional distress, or Defendant knew or should have known that their actions would result in Plaintiffs suffering serious emotional distress. 75. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants intentional, reckless and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiffs (specifically Isabel Santamaria) have suffered severe humiliation, distress, depression and anxiety. As a result of these stressful conditions that were concocted

against the Plaintiffs abruptly, without warning and in a period that initially spanned a few months, Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria developed Fibromyalgia which has greatly diminished her quality of life and in turn has caused a severe strain on Plaintiff Abdiel Echeverria and the children. Plaintiff (Isabel Santamaria) in a desperate attempt to try to get better as soon as possible and bring home some necessary income, requested the help of Vocational Rehabilitation so that she can work again. It was determined that for now she is to be considered disabled. The loss of their financial well-being, loss of wages (Isabel Santamaria), further harm to their credit, and the threatened loss of their home are the sources of serious emotional distress. 77. As a result, the Defendant BAC (Bank of America) are liable to Plaintiffs for actual and punitive damages. 78. Attached to this Third Amended Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs have included a copy of the psychological expert witness report (which includes experts curriculum vitae & referrals) for evaluation of Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria in accordance to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.190(b)(d)(e) herein labeled as Exhibit A-4. 79. Attached to this Third Amended Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs have included a copy of the report from Brevard Achievement Center referred by Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (Florida Department of Education) for Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria in accordance to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.190(b)(d) (e) herein labeled as Exhibit A-5. 80. Attached to this Third Amended Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs have included a copy of the letter from the Florida Department of Education (RE: Vocational Rehabilitation) for Plaintiff Isabel Santamaria in accordance to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.190(b)(d) (e) herein labeled as Exhibit A6. IIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court render judgment on Plaintiffs behalf as follows: (a) Enter a temporary and permanent injunction that Defendant BAC (Bank of America), including its agents,employees and contractors, refrain from practices, policies, and plans that

result in or increase Defendants misrepresentations, errors, falsehoods, barriers to timely, accurate communication with Plaintiffs which are identified by the Court through the course of this litigation;

(b) awarding money damages, including prejudgment interest, on each claim in an amount to be established at trial;

(c) for threefold damages; (d) for punitive damages nine-fold the compensatory damages or in such other amount as shall be just and proper; (e) awarding Plaintiffs statutory, attorneys fees, court fees and costs, and other relief; (f) Award Plaintiffs their exemplary damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72 and 772.11; (g) Grant such other relief as Court finds necessary and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of all issues so triable.

Dated: April 11, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________ Abdiel Echeverria Plaintiff (pro se)

________________________________ Isabel Santamaria Plaintiff (pro se) 499 Cellini Ave NE Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 676-4198 or (321)750-6697 andyecorso@yahoo.com, Isabel-1229@hotmail.com

State of Florida County of Brevard

) ) )

ABDIEL ECHEVERRIA and ISABEL SANTAMARIA, being duly sworn, depose and say that they are the Plaintiffs in the above entitled action, that they have read the foregoing THIRD AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of their own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters they believe them to be true.

___________________________________ Abdiel Echeverria Plaintiff (pro se)

____________________________________ Isabel Santamaria Plaintiff (pro se)

Sworn before me this _______ day of ______________________, 2012 __________________________________ Notary Public

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CASE NO. 6:10-cv-01933-JA-DAB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We, do hereby CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the THIRD AMENDED VERFIED COMPLAINT and all applicable documents has been furnished to: Akerman Senterfitt c/o Paul W. Ettori, Attorney for Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. by ( X ) mail ( ) fax ( ) mail and fax ( ) email ( ) hand-delivery on this 11th day of April , 20 12.

____________________________________ Abdiel Echeverria Plaintiff

____________________________________ Isabel Santamaria Plaintiff 499 Cellini Ave NE Palm Bay, FL 32907 (321) 676-4198 or (321) 750-6697 andyecorso@yahoo.com Isabel-1229@hotmail.com