breitlings' motion to vacate tillery's void judgment

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION SAMUEL G. BREITLING AND § JO ANN BREITLING, § §

Plaintiffs, § § vs. § NO. 3:15-CV-00703-B § LNV CORPORATION, ET AL., § MOTION TO VACATE § JUDGE TILLERY’S VOID

Defendants. § ORDER §

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE TILLERY’S VOID ORDER

Come now Plaintiffs, Samuel G. and JoAnn S. Breitling, who are self represented and

incorporate herein their pleadings in the following directly related cases:

1. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause DC-14-04053 in the Dallas County District Court in the 134th Judicial District, filed on April 15, 2014

2. Breitlings v. LNV Corporation et al, Civil Cause DC-14-09604 in the Dallas County District Court in the 101st Judicial District, filed on August 29

3. Breitling et al. v. LNV Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-3322-M (first removal by Beal entities to this U.S. District Court, heard by Judge Barbara Lynn)

4. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. JD15-00071C in the Justice of the Peace Court Number 2 in Garland Texas, Judge Gerry Cooper

5. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. CC-15-00911-C in the County Courts at Law Number 3 in Dallas County, Judge Sally Montgomery

6. LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Civil Cause No. 05-15-0677-CV in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, filed on or around May 27, 2015

7. Breitling et al. v. LNV Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00703-B (second removal by Beal entities) U.S. District Court, now heard by Judge Jane Boyle. Plaintiffs hereby motion this federal court to vacate the unconstitutional order issued on

August 4, 2014 by Judge Dale Tillery in the above referenced related case LNV Corporation v.

Breitlings (case DC-14-04053) (“LNV v. Breitlings”) which granted Defendant LNV

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 of 253 PageID 2690

Corporation’s (“LNV”) motion for summary judgment to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property. This

court should vacate said order for the following reasons:

1. The order is void because it was issued as a result of Dale B. Tillery’s violation of

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law

guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by the fifth (5th) and fourteenth

(14th) amendments to the United States Constitution.

2. The order is void because it was issued through acts of intrinsic and extrinsic

fraud perpetrated against Plaintiffs by Defendant LNV Corporation (“LNV”) and

by Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski P.C. (“C&S”) and by Dale B. Tillery, who is a

Judge in the Dallas County District Court in the 134th Judicial District; but who

was not acting within the scope of his judicial office when he issued the afore

referenced order and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue such order.

On June 23, 2014 Plaintiffs filed a timely answer to LNV’s petition for in rem foreclosure

via their Counsel the Lane Law Firm.

On July 7, 2014 Defendant LNV, as plaintiff in the related case, filed via their Counsel

Jeffrey Hardaway, employed by Defendant C&S, a motion for default summary judgment. On

the same day Judge Dale Tillery signed an “Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home

Equity Foreclosure” favoring LNV.

On July 9, 2014 this order showed up on the online docket for the Dallas County Courts

and Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling, defendant in the related case LNV v. Breitlings, phoned the court

because she knew this should not have happened under Texas Civil Rules of Procedure because

they filed a timely answer to LNV’s petition. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling was told by the court


coordinator, Francine Ly, that the judge must not have liked their answer. Plaintiff JoAnn

Breitling told Francine that as a matter of law, whether the judge liked their answer or not, a

judge cannot, without a hearing, order a default judgment when a timely answer has been filed;

and that doing so would be a violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and a direct violation of

Plaintiffs’ (defendants in the related case) constitutional rights of due process.

On July 9, 2014 the court then issued an “Order Withdrawing Court’s Signed Order”

stating: “the Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home Equity Foreclosure favoring

LNV was signed in ERROR”; and a hearing on LNV’s motion for default summary judgment

was scheduled by the court for 8:00 AM on August 4, 2014. (See Document# 38 page 4 and

pages 13 and 14.)

On July 28, 2014 the Lane Law Firm filed a response to LNV’s motion for default

summary judgment. On this same day Plaintiffs had a disagreement with their Counsel over

their handling of Plaintiffs’ case.

On July 29, 2014 the Lane Law Firm filed a Motion to Withdraw, which the court

granted on July 30, 2014. Also filed on July 29, 2014 was a Joint Objection to Court Order

Mediation (“Joint Objection”) and Motion to Reconsider the Order Approving Mediator Fees.

This motion states:

“Plaintiff recently brought this lawsuit in order to foreclose on the Breitlings’ home. One week after Defendants filed the Answer, the Court ordered the parties to mediation, scheduled for August 4, 2014. However to date, no discovery has been conducted by either party in this case and trial is set of March 30, 2015. Both Plaintiff and Defendants object to the order to mediation in this case because mediation would be futile at this early stage of the case.”

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 the Lane Law Firm in Plaintiffs’ behalf filed a motion for a

thirty-day (30-day) continuance of to allow Plaintiffs time to find a new attorney. This motion


pointed out that the trial date was set for March 30, 2015; and that LNV filed their Motion for In

Rem Summary Judgment less than two weeks after Plaintiffs’ answer was filed; and that a

hearing was set for Monday, August 4, 2014; but since they withdrew as Plaintiffs’ attorneys on

July 29, 2014 it was reasonable for the court to grant such a continuance; noted was the fact that

LNV’s Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway was opposed to the continuance. The hearing on the

continuance motion was also scheduled on Monday August 4, 2014 at 8:00 AM. Also on

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 Plaintiffs filed their first pro-se pleading in the form of a letter to the

court.

On July 31, 2014 Plaintiffs filed pro-se a motion to transfer back to the 116th District

Court.

On August 3, 2014 Plaintiffs filed a supplement to the objection to LNV’s summary

judgment which the Lane Law Firm had filed on July 28, 2014. The Lane Law Firm’s objection

was a generic response they used for all their typical foreclosure cases and Plaintiffs’ case is not

a typical foreclosure. Plaintiffs wanted facts specific to their case on the court record.

On August 4, 2014 Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling arrived at the courthouse at 7:00 AM. At the

start of the hearing C&S attorney Jeffrey Hardaway stood up and introduced himself as the

attorney for LNV. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling stood up and said "My name is JoAnn Breitling, and

I am here today, pro se."

Judge Tillery then said “I have a motion of continuance and I am not continuing this

case." He gave no reason for his decision to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a thirty-day (30-day)

continuance to find another attorney.


Judge Tillery’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for continuance to find new counsel to

represent them was a highly punitive abuse of his judicial discretion that has caused Plaintiffs to

suffer a domino effect of cascading deprivations of their constitutional rights to due process and

equal protection of law. It has unconstitutionally caused them to have to simultaneously defend

themselves pro-se in seven (7) different courts on the same issues. Not one of these seven (7)

courts has heard or adjudicated any of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Pro se litigants are significantly disadvantaged compared to trained and seasoned

attorneys like Jeffrey Hardaway. Judge Tillery knew or should have known this. The

appearance is that Judge Tillery’s intent was to deny Plaintiffs their constitutional rights to due

process and equal protection of the law by forcing Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling, a disabled senior, to

represent her family’s ownership interests in their property as a disadvantaged pro-se litigant.

Scheduled to be heard next that morning were Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer back to the

116th District Court and then LNV’s motion for summary judgment. It is exceptionally unusual

for a court to schedule back-to-back hearings on motions like Judge Tillery did in the Plaintiffs’

related case LNV v. Breitlings.

In Plaintiffs’ letter to the court filed on July 30, 2014 Plaintiffs explained how LNV was

attempting to circumvent earlier court findings and rulings in prior litigation in the 116th District

Court where the Honorable Judge Tonya Parker had already made a determination of fact and a

conclusion of law specific to summary judgment on issues so related to Defendant LNV’s

standing to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property that to assure justice and to facilitate orderly and

efficient disposition of the litigation a transfer of the LNV v Breitlings case back to the earlier

case was warranted.


This was explained in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer filed on July 31, 2014. Plaintiffs

explained how MGC Mortgage Inc. (“MGC”) is the company that claimed to be a mortgage

servicer for LNV in Plaintiffs’ earlier litigation in the 116th District Court; and how both these

“shell” and “sham” companies (LNV and MGC) were created by Daniel Andrew “Andy” Beal,

(“Beal”), to facilitate fraudulent foreclosures using false deed assignments and allonges to notes

that contain forgeries, false signatures, and false statements specific to the grantors/assignors and

grantee/assignees. Submitting false and forged mortgage related documents to courts as genuine,

while knowing they are not genuine, is fraud upon the court.

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud

upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between

the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a

member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been

directly corrupted.”

At the August 4, 2014 hearing Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling informed Judge Tillery that there

was a three year history of litigation involving the same parties (or related parties as MGC was

alleged to be the servicer for an undisclosed party at the time of the earlier litigation) in which

Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling (defendants in the LNV v Breitlings related case, and plaintiffs, in the

prior litigation) and that Plaintiffs in the current case had filed a motion to transfer the LNV v

Breitlings related case back to the 116th District court. (The Breitlings claims in the earlier case

involved misappropriation of payments, mortgage servicing fraud, and other claims specific to

mortgage servicing that have a direct bearing on LNV’s standing to foreclose on their property.)


Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling asked Judge Tillery to continue the case until the September 5th

hearing scheduled in Judge Parker's court specific to the transfer. Judge Tillery said: “No. You

are not transferring.” Again he provided no reason for his decision. He abused his discretion

because the decision about the transfer based on Texas Local Rules should have been made by

Judge Parker.

Judge Tillery’s decision was made in conflict with Local Rules 1.06 and 1.07 of the Civil

Courts of Dallas County Texas which require any pending case so related to another case

previously filed in or disposed of by another Court of Dallas County Court to transfer the latter

case to the earlier Court of jurisdiction to facilitate orderly and efficient disposition of the

litigation. The Judge of the Court in which the earlier case is or was pending may, upon notice

to all affected parties and Courts can set a hearing and transfer the latter case back to the earlier

court; and Judge Parker had scheduled such a hearing for September 5, 2014.

Local Rule 1.06 – Cases Subject to Transfer – states:

The following types of cases shall be subject to transfer under local rule 1.06: (a.) Any case arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as an earlier

case, particularly if the earlier case was dismissed by plaintiff before final judgment.

(b.) Any case involving a plea that a judgment in the earlier case is conclusive of any of the issues of the later case by way of res judicata or estoppel by judgment, or any pleading that requires a construction of the earlier judgment or a determination of its effect.

(c.) Any suit for declaratory judgment regarding the alleged duty of an insurer to provide a defense for a party to the earlier suit.

(d.) Any suit concerning which the duty of an insurer to defend was involved in the earlier suit. (source 1.1(f)(2))

Local Rule 1.07 – Disclosure Regarding Cases Subject to Transfer – states:


The attorneys of record for the parties in any particular case within the categories of Local Rule 1.07 must notify the Judges of the respective Courts in which the earlier and later cases are assigned of the pendency of the later case. The attorney filing a case that is so related to another previously filed case shall disclose in the original pleading or in a separate simultaneous filing that the case is so related an identify by style, case number and Court, the related case…” (Emphasis added.)

Emphasis on the words “shall” and “must” in the foregoing is added by Plaintiffs. The

language of these laws is clear – judges and attorney do not have discretion to comply with

statute they SHALL and they MUST comply.

As pro se litigants Plaintiffs did not know that the Local Rules required attorneys to

notify judges of earlier related cases; they themselves did notify Judge Tillery in their pro se

letter to the court filed on July 30, 2014. Although at the time Plaintiffs did not know about the

Local Rules quoted above Judge Tillery and LNV’s Counsel, Jeffrey Hardaway, knew or should

have known about these Rules. The fact that Plaintiffs raised the issue of transfer and disclosed

the existence of an earlier related case that was never adjudicated due to the intentional delays of

MGC’s attorney, Scott Hayes, and then the medical emergency involving the Plaintiffs’ mentally

disabled son, Matthew Breitling, which caused the Plaintiffs to non-suit MGC to care for their

son. (See Document # 44-1)

The related case LNV v Breitlings was subject to transfer as per Local Rules 1.06 of the

Civil Courts of Dallas County, Texas. Therefore it appears Judge Tillery made his decision to

deny such transfer against the rule of law.

Judge Tillery did not allow Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling any opportunity to object or to make

these arguments in his court. Counsel for LNV, Jeffrey Hardaway, took advantage of Plaintiffs’


position as ill prepared pro-se litigants thrust onto them by Judge Tillery when he denied their

motion for a thirty-day (30-day) continuance so they could find another attorney.

The final motion heard at August 4, 2014 hearing was LNV’s motion for summary

judgment. Defending against a motion for summary judgment is complicated and no one could

reasonably assume that a layperson such as Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling would be prepared to

present a case to defend against summary judgment when Plaintiffs’ Counsel had withdrawn

only a few days earlier on July 30, 2014. These facts suggest that Dale B. Tillery had a personal

motive and had intent to deprive Plaintiffs of counsel so that at the hearing on LNV’s motion for

summary judgment because he most certainly knew, or should have known, Plaintiffs would

have been ill prepared to defend themselves against a seasoned attorney such as Jeffrey

Hardaway who, according to his bio on Defendant C&S’s website, has “over seven years as a

litigation attorney dealing with all aspects of the foreclosure process from initial referral through

eviction” (http://www.codilisandstawiarski.com/attorneys.html)

At the beginning of the hearing specific to LNV’s motion for summary judgment LNV’s

Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway claimed, “These people have not made a payment in over four years,

and we are asking permission to foreclose. These people have breached their contract with us.”

Plaintiffs stopped making payments on the advice of their prior attorney, Emil Lippe,

who represented them in the prior related case in the 116th Dallas District Court. Mr. Lippe told

Plaintiffs to stop making payments because MGC had no legal standing to collect payments from

them; and because Counsel for MGC had no idea who owned Plaintiffs’ loan and told Plaintiffs

that payments they already made to MGC were likely never credited to Plaintiffs’ loan to reduce

their principal balance. The key question that must be answered in all this litigation extending


http://www.codilisandstawiarski.com/attorneys.html

over so many years is whether MGC (or its alleged sub-servicer Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc.

(“DMI”)) ever had a legal right to collect payments in behalf of LNV; and whether LNV lacks

standing itself. No court has heard any of the Plaintiffs’ claims specific to this one key question.

Material facts specific to LNV’s standing to foreclose needed to be determined in LNV v.

Breitlings and in each of the related cases spawned from it (i.e Breitlings v LNV et al as Case No.

DC-14-09604 in the Dallas County District Court in the 101st Judicial District removed to this

federal court by Defendants as Case No: 3:14-cv-3322-M which was ultimately remanded and

then removed again by Defendants as the present case) because Plaintiffs have consistently

claimed LNV lacks standing and have provided all these courts with evidence to support their

claims, and their claims have never been adjudicated in any of the seven courts Defendant LNV

has dragged Plaintiffs through since they violated the automatic stay provided to Plaintiffs by

Texas Rule 736.11 and illegally sold Plaintiffs’ property to itself (i.e. to Daniel Andrew Beal via

his shell corporation Defendant LNV), causing Plaintiffs to suffer great harm as a result.

LNV’s Counsel Hardaway is not and never has been a credible witness to any contract

between Plaintiffs and LNV. Hardaway’s claims are not founded in fact. Plaintiffs do not have a

contract with LNV and they vehemently deny the truth of Hardaway’s allegations made in

Tillery’s court; however as a pro se litigant, made a pro-se litigant only moments before by

Judge Tillerys’ unconstitutional decision to deny Plaintiffs a thirty-day (30-day) continuance to

find new counsel, Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling did not know how to object to Hardaway’s false

allegations and hearsay testimony. It is certain Hardaway understood Plaintiffs’ disadvantaged

position and intentionally exploited it. At the very least the appearance is that he intentionally

deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to due process; and that Judge Tillery allowed this

and/or colluded with him to do so.


“Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not

sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.” TRINSEY v.

PAGLIARO Civ. A. No. 34873. 229 F. Supp. 647 (1964).

In addition to Tillery’s allowance of Counsel Hardaway’s hearsay testimony, the

following hearsay affidavit testimony by counsel and by “robo witnesses” was allowed by

Tillery and by other judges in some of the seven (7) related cases to the present case. Plaintiffs

object to this hearsay affidavit testimony pursuant to Rule 802. Plaintiffs attempted to object to

such testimony in their pleadings and in court in each of the cases to be mentioned below.

In LNV Corporation v. Breitlings et al, Case No. JD15-00071C in the Justice of the Peace

Court Number 2 in Garland Texas, Counsel LNV filed a sworn “Verification” by Bret Maloney

with their eviction complaint. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A attached herein.) Bret Maloney has

filed affidavits in numerous court cases with “LNV/Beal victims” and he has provided testimony

through depositions all of which is perjured testimony and impeachable if Plaintiff ever had the

opportunity to question him. The moment Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling attempted to object to this

affidavit testimony by Bret Maloney LNV’s Counsel Luke Madole and Judge Gerry Cooper

ushered her into chambers so the jury could not hear her objection and where they made light of

the evidence she had to show Bret Maloney had been convicted of a felony crime. (See

Document #38, page 10.) Additionally Bret Maloney was deposed in the noticed related

bankruptcy case of Christopher and Marcia Swift in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Case No. 12-35690. On page 13 of that Bret

Maloney deposition lines 8 through 12 he states in response to questions about MGC’s address:

“I believe Beal and LPP is 6000 Legacy Drive. It's actually the same building, just two different streets that merge. Some are listed under 6000 Legacy Drive, the others are listed under 7195 Dallas Parkway.”


In fact the address 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX is an empty lot. Plaintiffs drove to

this address and photographed it. Google Maps also shows that this address is an empty lot and it

is NOT possible for this address to be in the same building as Beal Bank located at 6000 Legacy

Drive, Plano TX as the two streets do not merge as Bret Maloney testified and since he does

(did) work at the 6000 Legacy Drive, Plano TX address he should know this. (See Plaintiffs’

Exhibit B attached herein – Google Map of 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX.)

On page 28 line 7 through to line 23 of the aforementioned deposition of Bret Maloney

(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C attached herein contains the entire deposition) it states:

“Q. How many -- I will ask this question. How many senior vice presidents are there?

A. Under MGC, I am the only one. Q. Okay. And you have default management because that's basically what -- Are

there any other functions besides that that someone else takes care of or do you take care of all the vice presidential type things, or are there other vice presidents that takes of other things which are not a senior vice president?

A. There is another vice president who is vice president of operations and compliance, and then there is my CCO who would be above me.”

Yet in the noticed related case of LNV v. Subramaniam, Case No. 3:14-CV-01836-MO in

the U.S. District Court District of Oregon, Portland Division, Counsel for LNV submitted to the

court a declaration of Michelle Conner who also claims to also be a “senior vice president” of

MGC. Michelle Conner's LinkedIn profile shows her as an AVP/Bankruptcy Manager at MGC

Mortgage, Inc. People who work for Beal’s MGC can’t seem to get their stories straight. (See

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D attached herein)

Attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E attached herein are sworn Bret Maloney Affidavits

submitted to courts in several other Beal/LNV victims’ cases to support motions for summary

judgment (including one submitted in Plaintiffs’ prior case in the 116th Dallas District Court)


where Bret Maloney’s sworn statements can be proven false. In the Hamm case he claims to

have never been convicted of a crime, yet a criminal report and background check included in

Exhibit E shows this to be untrue. Also note that Maloney’s employer in the background check

is Beal Bank SSB not LNV and he is a “Loan Trader” and not a senior Vice President. This fact

was included in Plaintiffs’ pleadings submitted in Judge Dale Tillery’s court, but which he never

read and never acknowledged.

A recent email communication with Counsel for LNV in the noticed related case LNV v.

Subramaniam states that Bret Maloney is no longer employed by MGC. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

F attached herein.) His LinkedIn profile now states that he is seeking a new career opportunity.

This may be due to the fact that so many LNV/Beal victims have been discrediting his affidavit

testimony. Bret Maloney is not a credible witness. Neither is Edward J. Bagdon.

In related case LNV v. Breitlings, Defendant LNV, as the plaintiff in the earlier related

case, submitted to the court an affidavit of Edward J. Badgon to support of their motion for

summary judgment. (See pages 8 and 9 of Document # 37.)

Plaintiffs challenged the credibility of Edward J. Badgon’s testimony in their supplement

to their answer to LNV’s motion for summary judgment filed on August 3, 2014. Also attached

herein as Exhibit G, is the a Edward J. Bagdon “Business Records Affidavit” filed by Counsel

for LNV Jeffery Hardaway with LNV’s motion for summary judgment in LNV v. Breitlings and

a comparison of fifty-four (54) individual Edward J. Bagdon signatures found on mortgage

related documents filed with county property recorders’ offices across the county. Even to an

untrained eye the variations between these signatures indicates that multiple individuals signed

these documents as Edward J. Bagdon, when they were in fact not Edward J. Bagdon. This is


consistent with the adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown and her co-

conspirators, i.e. they used other unauthorized employees to sign mortgage-related documents on

their behalf knowing that the documents would be notarized as if the co-conspirator has signed

the document, when he/she had not. Plaintiffs also had filed as defendants in LNV v. Breitlings

along with their first motion to vacate Tillery’s void judgment filed on August 18, 2014 a motion

for judicial notice of the adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown for

doing exactly the same things Edward J. Bagdon and the unknown parties pretending to be him

by signing documents as if they were him; as well as the signing such documents claiming to be

a top executive officer of multiple financial institutions when he was never employed by such

institutions, nor was he ever a top executive officer of these institutions. The fact that he claimed

to be in the employ of these many institutions simultaneously through his signatures over many

years shows his deception; and discredits him as a viable witness as to the facts specific to the

Plaintiffs mortgage.

Bagdon was in fact employed by Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (“DMI”), an LPS service

provider; as is LNV’s Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway’s employer Defendant C&S. LPS (Lender

Processing Services a.k.a Black Knight Financial Services) was identified by the United States as

the corporate vehicle used by Brown and her co-conspirators in their criminal indictment and

conviction of Lorraine Brown.

The rules of evidence (specifically Texas Rule 102 et seq, Federal Rule 201 et seq,

Federal Rule 301 et seq, Texas and Federal Rule 401 et seq); and due process require Plaintiffs to

have had an opportunity to question Edward J. Bagdon and to impeach his affidavit testimony by

having him appear as a witness at a trial were he would be under oath before the court and could

be held accountable for perjured testimony.


Plaintiffs’ objections should have prompted further discovery; the case was not ripe for a

summary judgment.

“Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before

the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most

comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of

controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter

involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due

process of law”. Zeigler v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 599.

Being physically present alone does not suffice. Plaintiffs (as defendants in that case)

were never heard. The hearing on August 4th was merely a farce, a setup to give the appearance

that they had a hearing, but their side of the dispute; their claims and their objections to LNV’s

false affidavits were completely dismissed and ignored by Judge Tillery. Therefore Plaintiffs

were not heard; they were deprived of their right to due process.

“These phrases [due process] in the constitution do not mean the general body of the law,

common and statute, as it was at the time the constitution took effect; for that would seem to

deny the right of the legislature to amend or repeal the law. They refer to certain fundamental

rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized.”

Brown v. Levee Com'rs, 50 Miss. 468. “‘Due process of law’ as used in the constitution, cannot

mean less than a prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms

and solemnities for ascertaining guilt, or determining the title to property.” Embury v. Conner, 3

N.Y. 511, 517, 53 Am. Dec. 325. And see, generally, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 104, 24

L.Ed. 616.


LNV’s Counsel, Jeffrey Hardaway intentionally submitted false and fraudulently

fabricated mortgage related documents to the court knowing they were false and with intent to

harm Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, as defendants in LNV v. Breitling, challenged the authenticity of these

mortgage related documents including assignments of deed of trust and allonges to the note.

The facts Plaintiffs showed through their pleadings which are material as to whether or

not LNV had standing to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property which were filed in Judge Tillery’s

court should have warranted further discovery and a trial on the merits of the case had Judge

Tillery been unbiased and impartial; and had he actually read Plaintiffs’ pleadings filed in his

court. Affiant Edward J. Bagdon is a robo witness and a robo-signer consistent with the

aforementioned adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown; yet Judge

Tillery accepted his perjured testimony as true and granted LNV’s motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs’ post judgment motion to vacate Tillery’s order gave Tillery the benefit of

the doubt and provided him an opportunity to correct his error; however he choose to stand by

his unconstitutional decision in spite of evidence that should have, and would have, swayed an

impartial judge.

LNV’s Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway at one point during the August 4, 2014 hearing said,

"We have heard from Mrs. Breitling, but where is Mr. Breitling during all of this?" Judge Tillery

addressed Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling as “Ma’am” in a way that was extremely demeaning to her as

a woman. Both Counsel Jeffrey Hardaway and Judge Tillery spoke to Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling

in a way that was highly discriminatory in nature.

Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling had to represent her family at court because her husband was

with their son who is disabled with Down syndrome and a serious autoimmune condition and


cannot be left alone. Before she could respond to Counsel Hardaway’s derogatory gender biased

comment, Judge Tillery said, “I am ruling in favor of LNV because you, the Breitlings, did not

answer their summary judgment.”

To this Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Judge Tillery, “We DID answer. The attorneys

answered before they withdrew and it was timely.” Judge Tillery responded, “Well, I never saw

an answer.” Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Tillery it was filed on July 28th and handed Tillery

Plaintiffs’ supplemented answer filed on August 3, 2014.

Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling told Judge Tillery, “I have filed a 120 page letter to this court

explaining this case. You never even read it, did you?” Judge Tillery said nothing, so Plaintiff

said, “You don't know anything about my case, because you never bothered to read anything that

I wrote.”

These facts makes it appear that Judge Tillery intentionally signed the default judgment

order back on July 7th 2014 and that the hearing was only scheduled because Plaintiff JoAnn

Breitling caught him denying Plaintiffs their due process on the July 9th and phoned the clerk’s

office about the default judgment he signed when Plaintiffs had answered LNV’s complaint.

The hearing on August 4th was a farce meant to give the appearance that Plaintiffs had a hearing

and the issues were thus adjudicated; but none of Plaintiffs claims were even heard they were

denied their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law under the fifth (5th)

and fourteenth (14th) amendments to the United States Constitution.

Thankfully there was a credible witness at the hearing who can testify to everything

Plaintiffs’ have claimed herein. Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling was shocked when Francine Ly told

her there was no court record of their August 4, 2014 hearing. A hearing of such magnitude that


it can result in an American citizen being deprived of their property should be recorded as a

matter of law and a full transcript of the proceedings should be available to both parties of the

litigation. Not recording such hearings violates homeowners’ constitutional rights to due process

because the lack of a transcript significantly disadvantages them in a post-judgment challenge to

a judge’s decision or a challenge to the constitutionality of a judge’s order; and it provides no

record to a court of appeals from which that higher court could make a just and fair decision;

particularly when the judge, as in the present case, does not provide any basis in law or fact for

his/her decision.

Judge Tillery did not read Plaintiffs’ pleadings. He refused to hear Plaintiffs’ arguments

or to review any of Plaintiffs’ evidence. He denied Plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to acquire

new counsel assuring that they would be unprepared to defend themselves against a motion for

summary judgment moments later; he violated Local Rule 1.06 and denied their motion to

transfer back to Judge Parker’s court in spite of a hearing already set in her court on this matter;

he then without hearing any of Plaintiffs’ claims granted LNV their summary judgment motion.

Any neutral observer would conclude that Judge Tillery had decided to grant LNV’s

motion for summary judgment prior the hearing held on August 4, 2014. This is a blatant

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection of law pursuant the United

States Constitution and Judge Tillery’s behavior during the August 4, 2014 hearing violates the

Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. To quote the preamble to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:

"The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code of Judicial Conduct are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system."


The first Canon to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Upholding the Integrity and

Independence of the Judiciary, states:

“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.”

The second Canon to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Avoiding Impropriety and the

Appearance of Impropriety In All of the Judge's Activities, states:

“(A.) A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (B.) A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

By granting LNV a summary judgment that allowed LNV to foreclose on Plaintiffs’

property (i.e. deprive them of their property) without ever reading or reviewing Plaintiffs’

statement of facts and legal arguments specific to LNV’s standing to foreclose on their property,

after depriving them of an opportunity to find new counsel, and by refusing to allow them to be

heard in his courtroom, Judge Tillery directly violated the above quoted Canons to the Texas

Code of Judicial Conduct. He stepped beyond abuse of judicial discretion into the realm of

judicial misconduct. Judge Tillery’s behavior in this matter not only gives the appearance of

impropriety; it smacks of impropriety.

As the plaintiff in LNV vs Breitlings LNV had the burden of proof. “Courts and judges

are expected to the well-settled standard of review for traditional summary judgments. They

must determine whether the movant has met his burden to establish that no genuine issue of

material fact exists and that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” See Tex. R.


Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). A judge is

barred from making arbitrary or biased decisions unfounded in law. “Courts and judges must

take as true all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable

inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.” Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997

S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999); Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 Judge Tillery did the

exact opposite of this mandate of law; he took as true all evidence that is favorable to the movant

and ignored and completely disregarded all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant. He

made no attempt of any kind to resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.

Judge Tillery wrote in his “final order” that “defendants answer to summary judgment

was insufficient.” Plaintiffs’ answer cannot be insufficient after the fact when Judge Tillery

maintained at the hearing Plaintiffs never filed an answer; and that he never saw it when told

they had filed an answer. Judge Tillery makes no mention of the individual claims raised in

Plaintiffs’ pleadings or how he “disposed” of them.

“A judgment is not final merely because it states that it is final; it must actually dispose

of all parties and claims or demonstrate an unequivocal intent to dispose of all parties and

claims.” See Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

Judge Tillery failed to address any of Plaintiffs’ claims during the August 4th 2014

hearing. It was apparent he had no knowledge of Plaintiffs’ claims; he also appeared to not

understand the rules of law governing the case. The manner in which Tillery conducted himself

showed extreme bias against Plaintiffs and a headstrong determination to rule in favor of LNV as

far back as July 7, 2014 when he signed an “Order for Final Judgment In Rem Only With Home

Equity Foreclosure” favoring LNV.


In Judge Tillery’s written order issued on August 4, 2014 he simply stated Plaintiffs’

claims were insufficient. This is not adequate to meet the requirements for due process as it fails

to even acknowledge, let alone address Plaintiffs’ claims.

Judge Tillery’s decision to grant LNV summary judgment in LNV v. Breitlings shows a

blatant disregard for Texas rules of civil procedure; a disregard for the Texas cannons of judicial

conduct; a disregard for the Constitution of the United States and for the Texas Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683,

1687 (1974) stated:

"(W)hen a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.? [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).”

The extreme bias demonstrated by Judge Tillery against Plaintiffs at the August 4, 2014

hearing is indicative of a prior secret agreement between either Counsel for LNV, Jeffrey

Hardaway, or the owner of LNV, Daniel Andrew Beal and/or one of his many agents. Plaintiffs

are not in a position to prove this allegation but they pray the United States Attorney General and

the FBI will investigate Judge Tillery because additional evidence exists to suggest that Judge

Tillery makes decisions in favor of parties who provide him a financial or other personal benefit

as incentive. (See Exhibit G about Tillery’s propensity to make decisions based on who has

“given money” or taken him out for lunches or drinks.) Judge Tillery cannot claim judicial

immunity for acts of treason against the Constitution or for criminal acts, such as accepting a

bribe in exchange for his judicial orders.


Regardless of whether or not an investigation by the United States Attorney General and

the FBI provides conclusive proof of bribery or other incentives for Judge Tillery’s exceptionally

bias decision against Plaintiffs; it only takes the appearance of bias to undermine

constitutionality. The facts in this case warrant the vacating of Tillery’s order as a matter of law.

“Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States

wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United

States, and the Constitution of the State of Texas, any judge who has acted in violation of the

Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully comply with the

Constitution, then his orders are void,” In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), “he/she is without

jurisdiction.”

Tillery’s decision was made against the rules of law, and against the preponderance of the

evidence. He did in fact deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to due process and equal

protection of law and his resulting order is therefore void and of no effect.

According the United States Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, a judge who acts

under a state law in a manner that violates the Federal Constitution comes into conflict with the

superior authority of that Constitution, and is stripped of his official or representative character

and the judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual. Dale B. Tillery acted in a “a

manner that violates the Federal Constitution” and therefore acted not as a judge, but as a private

individual; and as a private individual he lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and the

parties in LNV v Breitlings. His order made as a private individual is of no legal consequence

and is void on its face.


“A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity

of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process

notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also

Restatements, Judgments 4(b). Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if

a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not

voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in

opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such

judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340,

26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).

“A default judgment is not presumed to be final.” In re Burlington Coat Factory

Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W. 3d 827, 829 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Houston

Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam). “When there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment

is not final for purposes of appeal unless it (1) actually disposes of every pending claim and

party, or (2) clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.”

Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

Tillery’s order granting LNV summary judgment is void because it is the result of

extrinsic or collateral fraud. The definition of collateral fraud:

“Fraud that prevents a party from knowing their rights or from having a fair opportunity of presenting them at trial.”

The definition of extrinsic fraud is:


“Fraud that induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard [or] is not involved in the actual issues.”

Tillery first denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance that would have allowed them an

opportunity to hire a new attorney. This act by Tillery assured that Plaintiffs would be forced to

proceed without benefit of counsel, thus preventing them from knowing their rights and having a

fair opportunity to present them at the hearing. A reasonable and unbiased judge would have

granted the reasonable continuance of thirty-days (30-days) to allow Plaintiffs time to find new

counsel.

Tillery’s first decision was to deprive Plaintiffs of counsel and appears to have been

intentional so as to prevent Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling from presenting a case in his court. It can

only be concluded that such a harsh and unfavorable decision was calculated to deprive Plaintiffs

of any opportunity to be heard. (This decision constitutes collateral and extrinsic fraud.)

“A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered

by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties,” Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E.

2d 756 (Va. 1987).

Tillery’s next decision was to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer back the 116th court.

This decision by Tillery was made against the Texas rules of civil procedure; and this decision

also appears to have been calculated with intent to deprive Plaintiffs of any opportunity to be

heard by an unbiased and impartial judge.

Finally Tillery granted LNV summary judgment allowing them to confiscate Plaintiffs’

property; without ever reading their motions and other pleadings, without ever understanding or

acknowledging Plaintiffs’ claims, without testimony from a single credible witness, and against


precedence of law that mandates the moving party has the burden of proof and that the court

must take as true all evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable

inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.

“It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment

must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard.” Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L

Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. “Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law

upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial

decision on the question.” Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. “A judgment of a court

without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination

of his rights.” Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, “and is not entitled

to respect in any other tribunal.”

"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing

void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed

370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861.

"Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the

government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the

protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one

in question belongs." Cooley, Const. Lim. 441. - “Whatever difficulty may be experienced in

giving to those terms a definition which will embrace every permissible exertion of power

affecting private rights, and exclude such as is forbidden, there can be no doubt of their meaning

when applied to judicial proceedings. They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to

those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the


enforcement and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must

be a tribunal competent by its constitution that is, by the law of its creation to pass upon the

subject matter of the suit…” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565.

Furthermore when courts allow judges to make arbitrary and biased decisions such as

Tillery’s decision in Plaintiffs’ case, and to continually participate in fraud upon the court (a

crime) unchecked and unsanctioned, then it causes great public harm as it erodes public

confidence in the judicial system and in our government.

Truth is always true, but falsehood is eventually discovered. It is better to protect the

constitutional rights of citizens like the Plaintiffs now and assure their claims are heard and that

each claim is addressed and adjudicated as per law and that a thorough process of discovery is

permitted to provide the court with genuine facts from which base solid judicial decisions upon.

Void judgments are open to challenge at any time. The case cited below involves a 1932

judgment vacated in 1944 due to proof that fraud was perpetrated on the court.

"No fraud is more odios than an attempt to subvert the administration of justice." Justice

Roberts in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). Quoting further:

“This case involves the power of a Circuit Court of Appeals, upon proof that fraud was perpetrated on it by a successful litigant, to vacate its own judgment entered at a prior term and direct vacation of a District Court's decree entered pursuant to the Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate. Hazel-Atlas commenced the present suit in November, 1941, by filing in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for leave to file a bill of review in the District Court to set aside a judgment entered by that Court against Hazel in 1932 pursuant to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate. Hazel contended that the Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment had been obtained by fraud, and supported this charge with affidavits and exhibits. Hartford-Empire, in whose favor the challenged judgment had been entered, did not question the appellate court's power to consider the petition, but filed counter affidavits and exhibits. After a hearing, the Circuit


Court concluded that, since the alleged fraud had been practiced on it, rather than the District Court, it would pass on the issues of fraud itself, instead of sending the case to the District Court. An order was thereupon entered denying the petition as framed but granting Hazel leave to amend the prayer of the petition to ask that the Circuit Court itself hear and determine the issue of fraud. Hazel accordingly amended, praying that the 1932 judgments against it be vacated and for such other relief as might be just. Hartford then replied and filed additional exhibits and affidavits. The following facts were shown by the record without dispute… Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments… The question remains as to what disposition should be made of this case. Hartford's fraud, hidden for years but now admitted, had its genesis in the plan to publish an article for the deliberate purpose of deceiving the Patent Office. The plan was executed, and the article was put to fraudulent use in the Patent Office, contrary to law. U.S.C. Title 35, § 69; United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315. From there, the trail of fraud continued without break through the District Court and up to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Had the District Court learned of the fraud on the Patent Office at the original infringement trial, it would have been warranted in dismissing Hartford's case. In a patent case where the fraud certainly was not more flagrant than here, this Court said:

‘Had the corruption of Clutter been disclosed at the trial . . . , the court undoubtedly would have been warranted in holding it sufficient to require dismissal of the cause of action there alleged for the infringement of the Downie patent.’

Keystone Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 290 U. S. 246; cf. Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., supra, 314 U. S. 493-494. So also could the Circuit Court of Appeals have dismissed the appeal had it been aware of Hartford's corrupt activities in suppressing the truth concerning the authorship of the article. The total effect of all this fraud, practiced both on the Patent Office and the courts, calls for nothing less than a complete denial of relief to Hartford for the claimed infringement of the patent thereby procured and enforced. Since the judgments of 1932 therefore must be vacated, the case now stands in the same position as though Hartford's corruption had been exposed at the original trial. In this situation, the doctrine of the Keystone case, supra, requires that Hartford be denied relief. The judgment is reversed with directions to set aside the 1932 judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, recall the 1932 mandate, dismiss Hartford's appeal, and issue mandate to the District Court directing it to set aside its judgment entered pursuant to the Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate, to reinstate its original judgment denying relief to Hartford, and to take such additional action as may be necessary and appropriate.”


Future taxpayers will bear the financial burden when citizens similarly deprived of their

property through fraud upon the court flood back to the courts for remedy.

Federal Courts have original jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Plaintiffs claim

Tillery’s decision in LNV v. Breitlings is unconstitutional; and have since he made it. In the

related case previously removed to this court as Case # 3:14-cv-03322-M-BN Magistrate Judge

David L. Horan in his findings conclusions and recommendations (Document 42 filed October

29, 2014) states:

“Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and all of the other motions are not yet ripe, but the undersigned concludes that there is no need to wait for further briefing where Judge Tillery’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 9] is fully briefed and should be granted… The Removing Defendants cite the rule that “[a] defendant is considered fraudulently joined when there is no reasonable possibility that a plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action in state court against the defendant.” Id. at 4. The Removing Defendants argue that, “[c]onsidering all allegations in the Petition in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs under Texas’s ‘fair notice’ pleading standard, there is simply no reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiffs might recover under any cause of action asserted against Judge Tillery in this case because he is entitled to judicial immunity, which is an absolute immunity from both suit and damages.” Id. at 5. …Removing Defendants’ reliance on the doctrine of improper or fraudulent joinder to excuse Judge Tillery’s lack of consent is misplaced... The improper joinder doctrine deals with matters of diversity jurisdiction, applying a test of ‘whether the defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff against an in-state defendant, which stated differently means that there is no reasonable basis for the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against an in-state defendant.’ …The improper joinder doctrine that the Removing Defendants have invoked, therefore, does not address the present situation. ...The Removing Defendants rely exclusively on judicial immunity to argue that there is simply no reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiffs might recover under any cause of action asserted against Judge Tillery in this case. But, even if the Removing Defendants have made this showing as to any claim against Judge Tillery for damages, the Removing Defendants’ papers do not address any other relief that Plaintiffs seek against Judge Tillery, however likely (or not) Plaintiffs may be to succeed. And that is the Removing Defendants’ heavy burden... ...As Judge Tillery himself notes in his Motion to Dismiss Subject to his Motion to Remand … under the Texas law that a state court would apply to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against Judge Tillery, ‘judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity or to attorney’s fees, for


obtaining such relief,’ ...Plaintiff’s petition prays for ‘any other equitable relief the court deems just.’ Dkt. No. 1-5 at 24; Dkt. No. 15-5 at 24. And the Removing Defendants themselves attached Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Vacate to their removal papers. See Dkt. No. 15-7. In that motion, Plaintiffs requested, among other things, that the state court ‘sanction Judge Tillery and attorney Jeffery Hardaway so they cannot deprive another Texan of their constitutional right to due process.’ Id. at 4 of 39. Plaintiffs’ motion also attached and purported to incorporate and reallege the arguments in a prior motion to vacate in which Plaintiffs asked the state court to, among other things, ‘remove Judge Tillery from the bench and sanction him and Hardaway with disbarment.’ Id. at 4 of 39, 33 of 39; see also Dkt. No. 1-7... Despite the liberality with which a state court would construe the pro se Plaintiffs’ pleadings and requests for relief, the Removing Defendants have not addressed these matters that seek something other than damages… the Court notes that, while denying that Plaintiffs are seeking prospective injunctive relief against him, Judge Tillery raised additional grounds in his conditional motion for dismissal precisely because of the limitation on judicial immunity’s scope noted above…. Even assuming the Removing Defendants are correct that ‘[t]he claims against Judge Tillery for constitutional violations and the servicing and origination-based claims against LNV and MGC ... raise different factual issues ..., turn on different legal issues, and will be proven by different evidence,’ Dkt. No. 17 at 16, a general description of these claims defies any conclusion that any misjoinder by Plaintiff of these claims was egregious and that the claims against Judge Tillery are wholly distinct from, and devoid of any real connection with the controversy at issue, in Plaintiffs’ claims against the Removing Defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims against Judge Tillery are based on rulings that he made in a lawsuit in favor of LNV and over Plaintiffs’ arguments that the subject matter of that case involved MGC, against whom Plaintiffs were involved in a separate case pending in the Dallas County courts. See Dkt. Nos. 1-5 & 15-5. By the Removing Defendants’ own description, in this case, ‘Plaintiffs also assert claims against LNV and MGC purportedly arising from the origination and servicing of their loan,’ Dkt. No. 17 at 2 – which are matters at least related to the case against LNV out of which Plaintiffs allege that their claims against Judge Tillery arose…. The Removing Defendants’ and Judge Tillery’s motions also suggest that Judge Tillery could consent only to removal of claims other than the claims against him or that this Court could sever only the claims against Judge Tillery and thereby cure the lack of consent problem. Those arguments are not well taken... The parties’ arguments for partial remand are not consistent with governing case law or the fact that ‘a principal reason for the unanimity-of-removal requirement is to prevent individual defendants from splitting the plaintiff's claim between state and federal fora…”

The unanimity-of-removal requirement may be meant to prevent individual defendants

from splitting the plaintiff's claim between state and federal for a, but nothing has prevented


Defendant LNV and its numerous attorneys from splitting Plaintiffs’ claim in the present case

between multiple state, federal and several layers of county courts. Defendant LNV seems to

relish any opportunity to snub its nose at legal requirements or ethical standards of conduct.

Counsel for LNV told Judge Barbara Lynn they intended to evict Plaintiffs and there was

nothing she could do about it. Since Tillery’s order issued on August 4, 2014 Plaintiffs have

spent between $12,000 and $13,000 defending against all the actions Defendant LNV has

initiated against them in all these different courts.

This single void order is the catalyst which has unconstitutionally caused Plaintiffs to

have to simultaneously defend themselves pro-se in seven (7) different courts on the same issues.

This is not supposed to happen. The fact that it has raises very serious questions about the

constitutionality of the body of Texas law regulating foreclosure and evictions, and the integrity

of the Texas judiciary.

This single void order has prevented Plaintiffs from finding legal counsel. As soon as an

attorney learns that they are spread across all these different courts most attorneys decline to take

their case; and if they are still open to it attorneys require an astronomical retainer far beyond

Plaintiffs’ ability to pay. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides for mandatory legal

counsel for Defendants in criminal cases because those convicted of crimes may be deprived of

life or liberty; but Plaintiffs and the other LNV/Beal victims have been deprived of their liberty

to make financial decisions specific to their property and they have deprived of the quality of life

they once enjoyed before they became victims of mortgage and foreclosure fraud; many of these

victims have become impoverished as a result of the crimes perpetrated against them. They have

been deprived of their liberty and their quality of life for many years; and they have been unable


to obtain legal counsel. It is time to address problems in our judicial system that a cause

unconstitutional out-comes.

Defendant LNV’s use of this unconstitutionally and fraudulently obtained void order to

illegally sale Plaintiffs’ property to itself and to attempt to evict Plaintiffs from their home of

thirty-three (33) years has caused Plaintiffs unimaginable harm that will affect them and their

heirs for many years to come.

From Black's Law Dictionary: “DUE COURSE OF LAW. This phrase is synonymous

with ‘due process of law,’ or ‘the law of the land,’ and the general definition thereof is ‘law in its

regular course of administration through courts of justice;’ and, while not always necessarily

confined to judicial proceedings, yet these words have such a signification, when used to

designate the kind of an eviction, or ouster, from real estate by which a party is dispossessed, as

to preclude thereunder proof of a constructive eviction resulting from the purchase of a

paramount title when hostilely asserted by the party holding it.” Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v.

City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R. 1058. ”

From Black's Law Dictionary: “In American law. A taking away; confiscation; as the

deprivation of a constitutional right. Thus a taking of property without due process of law;

Sundlun v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Pawtucket, 50 R.I. 108, 145 A. 451, 454; or of

liberty. Lynch v. City of Muskogee, D.C.Okl., 47 F.Supp. 589, 592. – “To take. The term has this

meaning in a constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of his property without

due process of law, and denotes a taking altogether, a seizure, a direct appropriation,

dispossession of the owner.” Brown v. City of Atlanta, 167 Ga. 416, 145 S.E. 855, 857. “It

connotes want of consent.” Sandel v. State, 104 S.E. 567, 571, 115 S.C. 168, 13 A.L.R. 1268.


Plaintiffs hereby move this federal court to immediately vacate Tillery’s void issued in

LNV v. Breitlings so as to unravel all the injustices perpetrated on Plaintiffs as a result of that

single void order. This court not only has the jurisdiction to do so; it has a constitutional

obligation to do so.

Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that a court may grant relief from judgment

where a new matter "clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of

which the injured party could not have availed himself” before judgment. Marine Ins. Co. of

Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332, 336 (1813). He further emphasized that an

Article III court can grant relief where the "equity of the applicant [is] free from doubt," � and

where a judgment "would be against conscience for the person who has obtained it to avail

himself." Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied).

“A void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and

does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the

case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person’s due process rights, or

where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order

to be void.” Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). “In

instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because

they are already void.” People ex. re. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66

(Ill.App.2 Dist. 1994).

“A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction

over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or

an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or


collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.” See Long v. Shorebank

Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill.

APp. 1 Dist. 2000).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that your Honorable Judge Jane Boyle will immediately

vacate the void judgment ordered by Dale B. Tillery in LNV v. Breitlings; and vacate the sale of

Plaintiffs’ property to LNV as a result of this void order; and vacate the various unconstitutional

eviction orders issued in the various county courts.

Respectfully Submitted,


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was

served upon all counsel of record and pro-se parties via the Court’s CM/ECF system, email,

and/or regular mail, and/or certified mail with return receipt requested; and that a correct copy of

the foregoing document was served upon The United States Attorney General and the Texas

Attorney General at the addresses below:

Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711

Marc Cabera, Jason Sanders, Robert Mowery Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave, # 2200 Dallas, TX 75201

Macdonald Devin, PC Codilis & Stawiarski 3800 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75270

U. S. Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, U. S. Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B


A Google map search for 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano, TX and 6000 Legacy Drive show that they are not located In the same building on the corner as stated by Bret Maloney. The building doesn’t wrap this far.

1795 Dallas Parkway is on the corner of Dallas Parkway and Tennyson Parkway.

Beal Bank at 6000 Legacy Drive is A


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C


1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISIONIN RE: ) ) Judge Carol A. DoyleCHRISTOPHER T. SWIFT and)MARCIA A. SWIFT, ) No. 12-35690 ) Debtors. ) Chapter 13

RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF BRET MALONEY JULY 11, 2014 10:00 A.M. Called as a witness herein, pursuant to the FederalRules of Civil Procedure of the United States BankruptcyCourt, pertaining to the taking of depositions, beforeWENDY M. STRICKLER, C.S.R., License No. 084-003257,qualified and commissioned for the State of Illinois,taken at 900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150, Oak Brook,Illinois.

COUNSEL PRESENT: SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, by MR. PAUL M. BACH and MS. PENNY BACH 900 Jorie Boulevard Suite 150 Oak Brook, Illinois 60523

appeared on behalf of the Debtors;


Bret MaloneyJuly 11, 2014

630.653.1622County Court Reporters, Inc.

2

1 COUNSEL PRESENT: (Contd.)

2 FREEDMAN, ANSELMO, LINDBERG, by

MR. CHRIS IARIA

3 1771 W. Diehl Road

Suite 120

4 Naperville, Illinois 60563

5 appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24




3

1 I N D E X

2 WITNESS: PAGE

3 BRET MALONEY

4 Examination by Mr. Bach 4

Examination by Ms. Bach 108

5 Examination by Mr. Iaria 122

6

7

E X H I B I T S

8

Deposition Ex. No. 1 5

9 Deposition Ex. No. 2 38











15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24




4

1 MS. REPORTER: My name is Wendy Strickler. I

2 am affiliated with County Court Reporters, Inc. My

3 address is 600 S. County Farm Road, Wheaton, Illinois,

4 60187. The date is July 11, 2014. The time is 10:05

5 a.m., and we are at 900 Jorie Boulevard, Oakbrook,

6 Illinois. The deponent's name is Bret Maloney.

7 (Witness sworn.)

8 MR. BACH: Let the record reflect that this is

9 the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 30(b)(6)

10 Deposition of Bret Maloney, which is taken pursuant to

11 Notice that was previously given and ordered to occur by

12 today by the Honorable Judge Cassling.

13 BRET MALONEY,

14 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

15 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

16 EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. BACH:

18 Q. Sir, could you please state your name.

19 A. It's Bret Maloney.

20 Q. Can you please spell it.

21 A. B-R-E-T, M-A-L-O-N-E-Y.

22 Q. And what is your business address?

23 A. 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas, 75024.

24 Q. And who are you employed by?




5

1 A. MGC Mortgage, Inc.

2 Q. Okay. Do you know why you are here today?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And why is that?

5 A. For a deposition in regards to the Swift

6 bankruptcy.

7 (WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

8 No. 1 was marked for

9 Identification as of this

10 date.)

11 BY MR. BACH:

12 Q. Okay. Now, before we get -- I am going to

13 show you what I have marked as Maloney Deposition 1,

14 which is here, and I have a copy for your Counsel, which

15 is just a Notice of Deposition.

16 Have you seen this document before?

17 A. I have.

18 Q. And when did you first see it?

19 A. I first saw it a couple of months ago, when I

20 was asked to be the witness to attend the deposition.

21 Q. Prior to seeing this document and hearing

22 about this deposition, had you ever had any contact with

23 the Swift case before?

24 A. Not that I am aware of, no.




6

1 Q. Have you ever talked to Marcia Shift or to

2 Chris Swift?

3 A. Not that I recall.

4 Q. Okay. Now, have you reviewed that document?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, this document is pursuant to -- as you

7 heard me say just a couple minutes ago, pursuant to

8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(B)(6). Do you know

9 what that means?

10 A. No.

11 Q. A 30(B)(6) deposition allows me to take a

12 statement from a designated officer, director of a

13 party, and it allows -- it has a list of inquiries to

14 which you are -- by disclosing you as a witness, you are

15 the most knowledgeable person, or the person able to

16 answer all of these.

17 Have you read the entire list of topics

18 that we intend to talk about today?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And are you prepared to talk about all those

21 topics?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What did you review today in order to prepare

24 for this deposition?




7

1 A. I reviewed the original notes, I have reviewed

2 the mortgage, the assignments of mortgage. I have

3 reviewed the servicing notes, the payment histories, the

4 foreclosure default letter, correspondence, the

5 pleadings, both bankruptcy docs., the bankruptcy plans.

6 I am trying to recall what else I reviewed. I think

7 that's about it.

8 Q. Okay. Well, we will get into the actual list

9 in a second, and that you have seen it. A lot of the

10 purpose of this deposition, as far as I am concerned, is

11 to clear up a lot of questions that I have regarding the

12 facts, okay? Originally, there were documents by LNV

13 Corporation. You have told me that you are employed by

14 MGC Servicing.

15 Let's start with you telling me about the

16 relationship between those two entities.

17 A. Okay. MGC Mortgage, Inc. is the servicer for

18 LNV Corporation.

19 Q. Okay. Is that always the case?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is there -- Are they owned by the same

22 parties?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And who is that?




8

1 A. Beal Financial Corp.

2 Q. Beal Financial Corp. I have also seen Beal

3 Bank U.S.A., and that is that is a Federal bank as far

4 as I could -- as far as I could tell. Is that not

5 true?

6 MR. IARIA: Can you define or -- It's kind of

7 ambiguous. Can you define, "Federal bank?" Do you mean

8 like FCC insured?

9 MR. BACH: That's part of what I am saying.

10 But from what I am seen, it's called Beal Bank U.S.A.,

11 which usually means that it's a bank. It's not an

12 important point, but what is the -- what is the

13 relationship between Beal Bank as well as the other two

14 entities that you have already mentioned?

15 A. They are all affiliated companies under the

16 same corporate umbrella underneath Beal Financial

17 Corporation.

18 Q. So if I understand that -- please correct me

19 if I am wrong -- that they are really one -- They are

20 different entities. I understand that from a legal

21 perspective. But there are different functions that are

22 carried out by each one. Is that really what it is?

23 A. No. They are different entities that are made

24 up underneath that corporate umbrella. I don't think




9

1 there is any -- I don't know as far as the functionality

2 goes.

3 Q. Okay. Does MGC only service for Beal Bank --

4 Beal -- I forgot the other entities that you

5 mentioned -- Beal, the management -- It sounds like

6 they are a parent company?

7 A. MGC Mortgage, Inc. services for Beal Bank --

8 Q. That's what I want to know.

9 A. -- LLP Mortgage, LNV Corporation and Beal Bank

10 U.S.A.

11 Q. Those are the only ones, correct?

12 A. We do have a relationship where we are

13 servicing and own some loans that are, I believe, Fannie

14 Mae, but it's a very small number.

15 Q. Meaning that they are owned by Fannie Mae or

16 that they are -- or they are Fannie Mae-type loans,

17 which are -- which are --

18 A. They are owned by Fannie Mae, serviced by MGC.

19 Q. Okay. Do you have an idea of what percentage

20 of the business that that would be?

21 A. Less than half a percent. I mean, it's very

22 small.

23 Q. Okay. Is there also a relationship between

24 CLMG Corp.?




10

1 A. There is.

2 Q. And what is CLMG Corp.?

3 A. CLMG Corp. is the commercial loan servicer

4 underneath that same corporate umbrella. CLMG Corp.

5 also is the custodian of the original loan documents.

6 Q. So they keep all original loan documents for

7 whom?

8 A. For all of those different entities that I

9 have previously mentioned.

10 Q. And how about Property Acceptance

11 Corporation?

12 A. Also another affiliated company underneath

13 that same corporate structure.

14 Q. Okay. Are there any other -- besides the ones

15 we have talked about, besides that, any other affiliated

16 companies?

17 A. LAC, Loan Acceptance Corporation. Those are

18 the only ones that I am aware of that are tied to the

19 residential side.

20 Q. And what does LAC, Loan Acceptance

21 Corporation, do?

22 A. I am not quite sure, because I don't have very

23 much involvement with them, other than I know that they

24 purchase loans on behalf of the other entities.




11

1 Q. Is there a reason why certain loans are held

2 by LNV or Beal Bank?

3 A. That, I am not aware of how that -- How the

4 loans go into which investor.

5 Q. Now, is there a contract between all of these

6 different entities on how this is one?

7 A. Again, I am not aware of that.

8 Q. So you don't know if there is a contract -- I

9 will just give you an example -- between MGC, who you

10 said that you were employed by, and Beal Bank?

11 A. No. There is a servicing agreement between

12 Beal Bank and MGC.

13 Q. Okay. Is this also the same servicing

14 agreement -- the same servicing agreement from LNV and

15 MGC?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. It has the same sort of terms is what you're

18 saying?

19 A. As far as the servicing agreement, yes.

20 Q. And what sort of terms are those? I am

21 looking for a general idea.

22 MR. IARIA: Objection to vague.

23 THE WITNESS: It's just talks about the

24 servicing of the loans and the relationship of MGC being




12

1 the servicer for those different entities.

2 BY MR. BACH:

3 Q. Okay. Does it include that MGC accepts funds

4 on behalf of the other companies and then writes them a

5 check for the loan payment?

6 A. I would have to look at the agreement to see

7 specifically if that's mentioned in there.

8 Q. I am just trying to understand. Like if MGC

9 gets a loan payment from somebody, the Swifts, or

10 anybody else, and it's $2,000, okay, because I know a

11 lot of servicing agreements you don't have to pay to the

12 investors and people actually own the loan because

13 that's who would get the money.

14 A. Right.

15 Q. I would guess there is some sort of an

16 agreement that says that at that point MGC would then

17 write the check to the owner of the loan, which could be

18 in this case, Beal Bank U.S.A. or LMV or one of the

19 other companies you mentioned. Does that sound about

20 right?

21 A. It sounds about right.

22 Q. Okay. Now, besides the companies we

23 mentioned, you said, "on the residential side." What

24 did you mean by that?




13

1 A. I work on the residential side of MGC

2 Mortgage. There is a commercial division under the

3 CLMG. There may be different entities over there. I

4 don't know all the different entities that they have or

5 investors that are set up under the CLMG side.

6 Q. Now, do most of them have an address for 7195

7 Dallas Parkway?

8 A. The LMV does, MGC does. I believe Beal and

9 LPP is 6000 Legacy Drive. It's actually the same

10 building, just two different streets that merge. Some

11 are listed under 6000 Legacy Drive, the others are

12 listed under 7195 Dallas Parkway.

13 Q. What's the difference between one or the

14 other, if you know?

15 A. I don't.

16 Q. At 7195 Dallas Parkway, there is actually a

17 building?

18 A. At the corner of 7195 Dallas Parkway and 6000

19 Legacy Drive, there is a building, yes.

20 Q. Now, before we get into a lot of other topics,

21 why don't you give me an idea about about your

22 educational history.

23 A. Okay. I have a Bachelor of Business

24 Administration, graduated in 1993 from Steven F. Austin




14

1 State University. That's located in Nagodoches, Texas.

2 Q. And you have had no education beyond

3 Bachelor's degree, correct?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And how about your employment history?

6 A. How far do you want to go?

7 Q. Why don't you give me an idea, when did you

8 start with the Beal Group of companies. I will just

9 call it that way.

10 A. December of 2000, I started, and I did leave

11 for one year, and that was from June 2007 through August

12 2008. I worked for Saxon Mortgage in Fort Worth, and

13 then I came back.

14 Q. Why was that?

15 A. Because I --

16 MR. IARIA: Objection, relevance.

17 MR. BACH: He mentioned it.

18 A. I enjoyed working for the Beal Corporation.

19 Q. That's all I expected you to really say. It

20 was more just a curiosity. You said you left, so it's a

21 little unusual to leave one firm and then come back to

22 another. That's the point I was trying to make.

23 Before 2000, when you started working for

24 the Beal Group of companies, did you work for another




15

1 banking institution or do other types of jobs before

2 that?

3 A. No, other types of jobs before that.

4 Q. So the first time you had any access, any

5 experience with banking, was about 2000, correct?

6 A. December 2000.

7 Q. And why don't you give me an idea of the type

8 of positions that you have held. I assume you have

9 always worked for MGC, correct?

10 A. MGC, since August 2008 until present.

11 Q. Okay. So who did you technically work with

12 before August 2008?

13 A. Saxon Mortgage from June 2007 to August 2008.

14 It was Beal Service Corporation from December of 2000

15 through June of 2007.

16 Q. Was that just a change in name or was that a

17 separate company that no longer exists?

18 A. There was a change in the name. Beal Service

19 Corporation still does exist, but the residential side

20 change to MGC Mortgage in early 2008.

21 Q. So it was more of a split between the

22 residential and the commercial, correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, getting back to the deposition, I




16

1 initially asked you when you first had -- you said a

2 couple months ago, okay. We had agreed upon you had

3 some problems with your family I understood, correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. With your father-in-law is what I understood,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes. He went in the hospital for three weeks

8 and then eventually passed.

9 Q. I'm sorry to hear about it. That's why we

10 kept continuing it, because family is much more

11 important than anything in law or a court case, and I

12 get that, and you have my condolences for that.

13 A. And I appreciate that. Thank you.

14 Q. Then we set it for June 5th, and then we had

15 some legal issues that came up. Did you have a plane

16 ticket to come here on June 5th?

17 A. I did.

18 Q. Okay. So you were going to arrive on June 4th

19 of that day?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. But you did have travel arrangements for that

22 day, correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Now, we spent some time talking about




17

1 the Beal Group of companies in terms of the servicing

2 and all those sort of things. Do they have the same

3 computer system that they share?

4 A. On the residential side, yes. Commercial side

5 uses a totally different system.

6 Q. I am obviously more interested in the consumer

7 residential side.

8 A. Right.

9 Q. For obvious reasons. So why why don't we just

10 confine ourselves to that for right now.

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. But it's the same computer -- from what I

13 understand, it's the same computer system, whether the

14 loan is technically owned by Beal Bank U.S.A. or it's

15 owned by LMV, correct?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Now, in terms of computer systems, what

18 software is being used, LPS Mortgage Platform? Did you

19 use LPS for any functions?

20 MR. IARIA: Objection, vague. I don't

21 understand the question.

22 BY MR. BACH:

23 Q. By LPS, you mean Lender Processing Services,

24 correct?


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



18

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Besides for the computer platform, do you use

3 them for -- Do you use them for anything else?

4 MR. IARIA: Objection. Ambiguous. I don't

5 know where you're going with this, by functions or

6 anything else. If you can just clarify.

7 BY MR. BACH:

8 Q. You have a computer system that was written --

9 the software was written by LPS, correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You obviously get computer services from

12 them. Do you use them for -- to find attorneys to

13 represent you in various matters?

14 A. You're talking about LPS Desktop?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Our subservicer does.

17 Q. Who is the subservicer?

18 A. Dovenmuehle.

19 Q. What's Dovenmuehle's -- I know they are --

20 dobin Mule is in not too far from here, in Lake Zurich.


22 Q. What is their function in all of this? I got

23 some names we mentioned a little bit earlier.

24 A. They are the subservicers for our Legacy


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



19

1 portfolio. They handle all the day-to-day operations.

2 Q. When you mean Legacy portfolio, what do you

3 mean?

4 A. The loans that are owned by each of those

5 different entities, that there is no other -- Let me

6 clarify this. I have two portfolios. One is a Legacy

7 portfolio wholly owned between all those different

8 investors, then another portfolio that's under an

9 agreement with the FDIC with a loss-share agreement,

10 segregated with the different subservicers.

11 Q. Also a different subservicer?

12 A. Cenlar.

13 Q. Cenlar handles the one that has also shared

14 agreements is what you're saying?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. That's a different -- every other loan is a

17 Legacy loan besides that, correct?


19 Q. Which meant -- just so I make sure we're on

20 the same page -- I understand it was a loss-share

21 agreement. That usually means that the FDIC had taken

22 over another bank. You bought assets from the FDIC,

23 correct?

24 A. Correct.




20

1 Q. And then the FDIC and who then who enters into

2 an agreement? Would it be one of these companies that

3 we have talked about or were there specialized -- Is

4 there a certain -- It's only Cenlar you mentioned?

5 MR. IARIA: Objection, relevance to this

6 case.

7 MR. BACH: I am just trying to understand the

8 whole thing.

9 A. The owners of the loss-share ones are under

10 Beal Bank and LPS Mortgage, and those are all being

11 serviced by Cenlar.

12 Q. So Legacy could have any of the ones we

13 discussed already, correct, or Legacy is part of the

14 Legacy portfolio?

15 A. Everything else outside of the FDIC loss

16 year.

17 A. C-E-N-L-A-R. Cenlar.

18 Q. Who owns the LPS Mortgage Platform? Is the

19 program actually sold to you or is it on a lease

20 agreement?


22 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

23 BY MR. BACH: That's fine.

24 Q. What does LPS Mortgage Platform do on a


Denise

Highlight



21

1 general basis, what kind of functions does it serve?

2 MR. IARIA: Objection, vague and relevancy.

3 THE WITNESS: It's where all loan information

4 is housed with regards to where payment applications are

5 made, where the notes are documented on the system. It

6 has, you know, each of the different areas of

7 functionality, bankruptcy, loss mitigation, foreclosure,

8 the different templates that would be opened up for

9 those different areas.

10 Q. So it basically takes care of any function

11 within -- that you would need to service a loan,

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is there anything it does not take care of?

15 A. Can you be more specific?

16 Q. I don't know. I don't know much about

17 mortgage. That's not my job. I am just wondering. It

18 takes care of all the functions basically that you would

19 need, it sounded like, but that was more just to

20 conclude that?

21 A. I think everything that is needed for the

22 daily operations to servicing the loan would be in that

23 system.

24 Q. So it takes care of accounting, management and


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



22

1 reporting, all of those things, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Now within the plat -- the LPS Mortgage

4 Platform, how does it keep images or copies of documents

5 that are related to a particular file?

6 A. Anything that's entered onto the records, such

7 as the notes or the payment history transactions, that

8 is kept on the system. Any of the letters or any

9 letters, correspondence, all that would be in a document

10 scan imaging system that's separate from that system.

11 Q. Can you access it from the LPS Platform?

12 MR. IARIA: Objection. Can you

13 specify, "accessed?"

14 BY MR. BACH:

15 Q. Meaning if you're looking -- Let's just be

16 blunt, as I say. If you're looking at the Swifts'

17 account, okay, if you're looking at the Swifts' account,

18 if there are letters that were sent to them, can someone

19 pull them up?

20 A. Yes. You would have access to that document

21 scanning image system, but not from inside the LPS

22 System.

23 Q. How would you have to get them?

24 A. You would have to have access to that


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



23

1 platform.

2 Q. Okay. So maybe I guess we will go back. So

3 copies of documents are kept on a different platform

4 than the LPS Mortgage Platform?

5 A. Yes. So if it shows that a letter was

6 transmitted -- The letters would be generated off of the

7 system if there was anything sent out to the loans. The

8 document would then be scanned and imaged into a

9 document scanning imaging system, and then it would be

10 housed in that system.

11 Q. So if someone wanted to get a copy of letters,

12 how would they do it?

13 A. Would go into the document imaging system, put

14 in the loan number, and then it would pull up the list

15 of the documents, and you would go there and select the

16 document that you're requesting.

17 Q. So it's not a difficult thing. And how long

18 would that take?

19 A. Seconds, minutes.

20 Q. Now, is the same thing true is if as part of

21 the escrow -- I am just trying to understand your

22 system -- as part of the escrow you make -- you pay some

23 taxes, you pay some real estate taxes, right?

24 A. Mm-hmm.


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



24

1 Q. There is obviously -- at least if I am going

2 to pay something, I want to keep an invoice and I want

3 to have a copy of the check which shows that it was sent

4 out. Is that done as well in the same way?

5 A. It would be imaged, yes.

6 Q. Okay. Is that part of the LPS Platform or

7 part of the other platform that we were discussing?

8 A. It would be -- the actual transaction would

9 take place in the transaction. In the payment history

10 notes, it would show if a payment was disbursed.

11 Q. Right.

12 A. The checks and/or statements or invoices, as

13 you will, would have been scanned and imaged into the

14 document imaging system.

15 Q. So you would have kept the invoice, correct,

16 or a copy of the bill that you were paying?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And it would be very easily accessible,

19 correct?

20 A. It should be, yes.

21 Q. And the same would be true if, for instance,

22 there was -- let's say many times mortgage servicers

23 choose to do property inspections of properties that are

24 in foreclosure, correct?


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



25

1 A. Say that one more time.

2 Q. Property inspections.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. Okay. I see them quite often on proof of

5 claims, that's why I know that they happen.

6 A. Sure.

7 Q. So you have a property inspection that takes

8 place, and obviously the person that goes out to the

9 property wants to make sure that they get paid for their

10 work. They send you an invoice and you send them a

11 check. Is the same information cataloged for that type

12 of transaction?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And it's easily accessible, as you said, all

15 someone has to do is just print it out?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Are there additional -- Strike that. How does

18 the software system track delinquencies? Does it tell

19 you when someone hasn't paid after the 15-day grace

20 period? Do you get a report?

21 A. Yeah. I mean, you would have a report that

22 would, of course, pull it to see which loans are

23 actually delinquent at that point. But, yes, it would

24 be report-generated.


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



26

1 Q. Does the software automatically charge a fee

2 for like a late -- for like a late payment after 15

3 days, or does it require a human to actually assess it?

4 A. The late fees are set up in the computer

5 system. It's programmed in there. I am not an IT tech

6 guy, so --

7 Q. That's fine.

8 A. I couldn't explain that, but it's set up based

9 on the terms of the note. So if the note says on Day 16

10 that we need to assess a late fee of five percent of

11 whatever it says in the note, then it would assess that

12 to that loan at that point in time.

13 Q. So we're going to come back to a little more

14 discussion because we're going to pull out the pay

15 history and go through it line by line in a little bit,

16 but let's move on to some of the other basic things that

17 I have.

18 MR. IARIA: Paul, just as a -- Sorry to cut

19 you off here. We do have some additional documents

20 regarding pay history and some other charts that you

21 weren't in possession of. I don't know if you want to

22 go off the record for a second and take a look, and

23 maybe the version we have here is the numbers are done

24 in a way that's probably easier to follow for the


Denise

Highlight

Denise

Highlight



27

1 purposes of a deposition.

2 MR. BACH: Is it the XLS spread sheet I have

3 heard so much about? Looks sort of like that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. How many copies?

6 A. I brought four or five copies of that. There

7 is two separate ones. Once includes from origination to

8 the first bankruptcy, and then everything subsequently

9 after it was dismissed.

10 Q. Well, are there any other documents you

11 brought with you just so I know ahead of time? Besides

12 the original stuff? I can go get that.

13 A. I did. When you were talking about the

14 invoices before, we also put together this, and I can

15 take it out if you want me to, if you want to make

16 copies. It shows the POC breakdown on the summary for

17 the charges and everything is color coated, and the

18 corresponding invoices that are tied to each one of

19 those different charges.

20 Q. Okay. And I can keep these, correct?

21 A. Yeah. This will be yours. I have extras as

22 well.

23 Q. Okay. Leave that there. Let's go through a

24 couple more of the basic things and then we can go back,




28

1 and I appreciate that.

2 A basic question is that I have is before

3 you got involved -- and obviously I can see from your

4 card that you are a senior vice president -- I am

5 guessing that's what SVP stands for, correct?


7 Q. Could be special vice president, but I didn't

8 think that they would do that to you. But I assume that

9 you are pretty high up in the chain of command,

10 correct?

11 A. Within MGC, yes.

12 Q. How many -- I will ask this question. How

13 many senior vice presidents are there?

14 A. Under MGC, I am the only one.

15 Q. Okay. And you have default management because

16 that's basically what -- Are there any other functions

17 besides that that someone else takes care of or do you

18 take care of all the vice presidential type things, or

19 are there other vice presidents that takes of other

20 things which are not a senior vice president?

21 A. There is another vice president who is vice

22 president of operations and compliance, and then there

23 is my CCO who would be above me.

24 Q. Okay. Mr. Beal has a position there, too?




29

1 A. Owner.

2 Q. Okay. Owner. But he doesn't have any items

3 of responsibilities type things?

4 A. Not that I am aware of, no.

5 Q. Do you have contact with him on a regular

6 basis?

7 A. I do not.

8 Q. Did anybody at MGC or any of the other Beal

9 companies assist you in getting ready for this

10 deposition?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And who with that be?

13 A. Chris Whiteley.

14 Q. How do you spell that, please?

15 A. W-H-I-T-E-L-E-Y.

16 Q. Okay. Anybody else?

17 A. Israel Brown.

18 Q. Anybody else?

19 A. No.

20 Q. And what are both of their job functions?

21 A. Chris is the bankruptcy quality control

22 analyst and Israel is a default analyst.

23 Q. Are they located in the office in Texas?

24 A. Yes.




30

1 Q. They are both employees of MGC?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. What was Israel's job again? I'm sorry.

4 A. Default analyst.

5 Q. I'm sorry. Before you got involved, who was

6 responsible for this file, meaning the Swifts' file?

7 MR. IARIA: Objection. Specify a time

8 period.

9 BY MR. BACH:

10 Q. Let us say from the time the case -- let's go

11 from the time the case was filed.

12 MR. IARIA: The second bankruptcy?

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. The second bankruptcy, meaning that would have

15 been in October of 2012, if I remember correctly.

16 A. I don't know who exactly was responsible for

17 this file.

18 Q. Was it being done out of Chicago, out of

19 Texas, meaning Dovenmuehle, is what I am getting at.

20 A. It would have been done out of Dovenmuehle.

21 Q. It was being done by someone at the facility

22 in Lake Zurich, correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. I wanted to ask you about something. I will




31

1 get to that in a second. Who is Grant Hamilton?

2 A. Grant is the vice president of operations and

3 compliance, and he is also associated general counsel.

4 Q. Is he out of Texas as well?

5 A. He is.

6 Q. And all three have the same address as you,

7 correct?


9 Q. So sitting here today, you don't have any

10 knowledge about who at Dovenmuehle was handling the

11 Swifts' case, correct?

12 A. The specific person?

13 Q. Yeah,?

14 A. No.

15 Q. A department?

16 A. Their bankruptcy department.

17 Q. Okay. Could you determine who at Dovenmuehle

18 was handling it?

19 A. I would be able to find out, yes.

20 Q. Okay. Would that be available on the

21 servicing notes that you mentioned that you reviewed

22 today?

23 A. I don't think so. I mean, there are notes

24 that are entered in there by multiple individuals. So




32

1 as far as who was specifically assigned that file, I

2 wouldn't be able to tell from the notes.

3 Q. And maybe it's just my ignorance. As you

4 probably have guessed, I am a debtors attorney. I have

5 never worked in foreclosing mortgages or worked on that

6 side, so I am not trying to sound like I am being

7 condescending or anything like that. Perhaps you can

8 explain to me in this type of a bankruptcy department

9 that's dealing with loans that are in default, is a

10 specific person assigned to them or is it more just a

11 general responsibility?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. Now, from -- we talked about -- now I am going

14 to take what we talked about. We talked about during

15 the second bankruptcy you didn't know -- it was someone

16 at Dovenmuehle that was handling it up until the time

17 that this deposition was scheduled. Now, before that,

18 during the first bankruptcy, do you know, was it

19 different than who was responsible for the Swifts' loan?

20 A. The first bankruptcy, the loan was being

21 serviced by GMAC.

22 Q. Okay. So the Beal Group of companies did not

23 own the loan until when?

24 A. The loan was purchased from Residential




33

1 Funding at or about April of 2008.

2 Q. And how do you know that?

3 A. The purchase and sales agreement that we

4 have. Also, when we actually receive the original note,

5 it's documented in our master tracking system in our

6 document control department. It shows you when the

7 original loan was actually received.

8 Q. Which is that other company -- I put that

9 chart away -- was the other company that you mentioned,

10 the name, and I can't --

11 A. CLMG.

12 Q. GMAC, they bought it in April of 2008 is what

13 you testified?

14 A. LNV purchased the loan.

15 Q. In April of --

16 A. At or around April 2008.

17 Q. Why don't we just get into the -- You said

18 that you had the original note, correct, with you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And why don't we get that out and go from

21 there and we can do that.

22 A. I have a copy of the original note and

23 original allonge.

24 Q. So what I have been handed -- let me just do




34

1 it for the record -- is a manila folder with a yellow

2 sticker on it with a date of 3-4 of 2012, and says, "One

3 of one. Priority not assigned foreclosure files," and

4 it says, "Michelle Lewis." What is that, the sticker?

5 MR. IARIA: If I could, that's a sticker from

6 my firm. Michelle Lewis is a document custodian at

7 Freedman Anselmo Lindberg.

8 BY MR. BACH:

9 Q. That's what I wanted to know. It's

10 written, "Swift/A" on it by your firm then, correct?

11 MR. IARIA: Correct. And I presume that that

12 would be a folder created by Michelle Louis, but I don't

13 know.

14 MR. BACH: Okay. I don't want to attach

15 this. Perhaps we can make a paper copy that we can make

16 a deposition exhibit.

17 MR. IARIA: If you want to.

18 MR. BACH: I don't want her to have to keep

19 it. I want to be able to give it back to you.

20 MR. IARIA: Of course.

21 MR. BACH: So perhaps we can have a copy made

22 of these documents without removing the staple and I

23 won't touch that. Maybe we can do that. Give me two

24 minutes and I will have that done so we have a




35

1 deposition exhibit and go through that.

2 MR. IARIA: Sure. The only thing I would

3 suggest is maybe if you're going to try and do copies of

4 all the originals, if we go through it.

5 MR. BACH: That's fine. Are there other

6 documents of originals?

7 MR. IARIA: Correct.

8 MR. BACH: Why don't we get them all out.

9 That's an excellent --

10 MR. IARIA: I am going to have to go off the

11 record and watch the copying process.

12 MR. BACH: I have no problem with that at

13 all. So this is an additional --

14 A. This is an additional allonge from LNV to Beal

15 Bank U.S.A.

16 Q. Is there a mortgage? Did we find the

17 mortgage?

18 A. We have a certified copy from the county.

19 Q. So we don't have the original, correct?

20 MR. IARIA: My firm is not in possession of

21 the original.

22 MR. BACH:

23 Q. Do you know if CLMG Corporation has the

24 original?




36

1 A. No.

2 Q. So as far as you know, the original is

3 missing?

4 A. The original mortgage, yes.

5 Q. Now, do we have the collateral file as well?

6 A. It's right here. That's why I am pulling some

7 of my orignal docs out of it. Original assignment,

8 recorded assignment from LNV to Beal Bank, U.S.A.,

9 assignment of mortgage from MERS to LNV Corporation.

10 MR. IARIA: Don't forget the exhibits.

11 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

12 MR. BACH: We are going to do this two

13 different ways. We are going to make copies so we can

14 have an exhibit to that. Let's go off the record for a

15 second.

16 (Off the record.)

17 MR. BACH: Let's go back on the record. We

18 went off the record for a second, and I want to make it

19 for the sake of the record, what we did. The deponent

20 brought -- the deponent and his attorney brought with

21 him some original documents, the note -- the note which

22 was, as I said before we went off the record, was

23 contained -- the original note was contained in a

24 document from Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg, LLC, that was




37

1 kept probably -- I am guessing -- when the file was sent

2 to them for foreclosure purposes.

3 MR. IARIA: I think that's an accurate

4 statement. If you open up the first page, it has

5 actually more detailed information. I think someone

6 signs for it.

7 MR. BACH: It has a date of June 20, 2011?

8 MR. IARIA: Correct. I think that would be

9 their releases to us.

10 MR. BACH: Okay. And what we have done is --

11 so that the document, which is the original note, we did

12 not want to remove the staple of the way it is as --

13 when it was brought -- when it was brought in and shown

14 to me. So we have taken a copy -- because it was

15 difficult to copy it. We have taken a copy from the

16 Proof of Claim that was filed in this bankruptcy case,

17 which is 12 B 35690, and it's part of Claim 17-1, Part

18 3, which is the top of the document which we are going

19 to say is Deposition Exhibit No. 2. And I am labeling

20 that Maloney Dep Exhibit 2. Okay. So this is Dep.

21 Exhibit 2.

22

23

24




38

1 (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit



4 date.)

5 BY MR. BACH:

6 Q. Now, I am going to hand to you what we have

7 labeled Dep Exhibit No. 2, and the manila folder that

8 has the original note, and ask you to compare them and

9 tell me if there is anything different about them?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You're saying yes to what?

12 A. There is a difference between the copy that

13 was provided in the claim and the actual original.

14 Q. And what is that?

15 A. There is an extra endorsement on here from RFC

16 to LNV Corporation, Inc., that is not attached to the

17 original note.

18 Q. Okay. So there is allonge missing that was

19 attached to the Proof of Claim, but it's not with the

20 original, correct?

21 A. No. The one -- the two that are attached here

22 are to LNV from RFC. One of them was drawn up

23 incorrectly. It included the LNV Corporation, Inc., so

24 when somebody sent these for the Proof of Claim, they




39

1 pulled it off of the document imaging screens that we

2 talked about earlier. They pulled a copy of the note

3 and the allonges, which would have been under separate

4 categories in the document imaging system, so somebody

5 sent you an extra allonge that should have been included

6 because it's not attached to the note.

7 Q. Okay. Excuse my ignorance. Does that happen

8 often?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Have you ever seen that happen before?

11 A. I have one other time, yes.

12 Q. And why was that or why -- That's not

13 important why the other one was there. But why would

14 that have happened?

15 A. You would have had a new employee who was not

16 used to the different investors and how they are

17 actually supposed to be styled on the allonges, and they

18 would have -- in this case the employee actually added

19 in that ink onto the back of it, but it's just LNV

20 Corporation.

21 Q. Okay. I am going to come back and we're going

22 to talk some more about the note. I promise.

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. There is also another original -- Do we have




40

1 copies of this? Let's call this Dep Exhibit 3. This is

2 the original. I am keeping them separate, I promise

3 you. I am labeling this Maloney - as I said, we're

4 doing this so that the court reporter will be able to

5 have a full copy of the exhibits that we talked about

6 because we are not going to give the court reporter, for

7 the record, the original of a note in the mortgage. I

8 think everybody can agree upon that. So this document

9 will be Maloney Deposition No. 3.




13 date.)

14 BY MR. BACH:

15 Q. Now I am going to hand to you Maloney

16 Deposition No. 3, the original and a copy.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. That has been labeled as an exhibit. Could

19 you tell us what that is?

20 A. This is the Note Allonge between LNV to Beal

21 Bank, U.S.A.

22 Q. Now, this particular allonge is not attached

23 to the note, correct?





41

1 Q. And what is the date of this allonge? Is it

2 dated?

3 A. It's not dated.

4 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, do you know what

5 date that allonge was executed?

6 A. Yes. Actually there is a document in the

7 collateral file which shows when this was actually

8 entered into the file. And let's see when it was

9 managed into the file. There is a date at the top that

10 says May 3, 2013.

11 Q. Okay. I don't like to -- Let me just ask you

12 a question. I have been handed to me what says, "Beal

13 Imaging Department," which I am guessing is a department

14 that's used by all Beal Companies, and that's why it

15 says that. And it says that the print date was 5-3 of

16 2013. What does that mean?

17 A. That was when a copy of the original allonge

18 was actually put into the actual collateral loan file.

19 Q. Okay. So it would not be wrong if we added --

20 if we made a copy of this document and we added it onto

21 Maloney Deposition Exhibit 3, which is this, because

22 they are really one in the same document that I was

23 handed out of the collateral file, correct?

24 A. The original note allonge came out of the note




42

1 file jacket, which is separate from the collateral

2 file. All the notes are housed in a fireproof safe. So

3 what we will do is the originals would go in there, the

4 copies would go into the collateral file. Only the note

5 and the allonges would go in that safe.

6 Q. Okay. Well, then what you're telling me

7 really is this piece of paper should be Deposition

8 Exhibit 4 and it should not be attached to the note,

9 correct?

10 MR. IARIA: I have no objection to that. I

11 don't think it's part of 3. If you want to do 4, I have

12 no problem.

13 MR. BACH: I am going to call that Deposition

14 Exhibit No. 4. We will mark it later on. I don't want

15 to stop. We have already had enough stoppages. Let's

16 move forward was the idea. So Maloney Deposition

17 Exhibit 4 will be the green -- a copy of the green piece

18 of paper that says,"Beal Imaging Department," and then

19 has a print date of 5-3-2013 and has a Master Track

20 Number on here of 17105086. And I think that would

21 sufficiently identify it so we all know what we're

22 talking about. But that will be Maloney Deposition

23 Exhibit 4. Okay?

24 A. Okay.




43



3 Identification as this date.)

4 MR. BACH: Then we can do that.

5 Q. I assume that there are -- is there a similar

6 type document that was in the collateral file regarding

7 the notes -- regarding the note and the allonges that

8 are a copy, which is Deposition Exhibit No. 2?

9 A. With regards to the date of the original being

10 received, that's not in the collateral file. I do have

11 that in another file which shows when the original note

12 was actually cataloged into the system as being

13 received.

14 Q. Okay. In the dock documents that you have or

15 in some -- You don't have it with you?

16 A. I don't have it in the room here with me right

17 now, no.

18 Q. So it's back in Texas is what you're saying?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. That's all I want to know. That's what I was

21 trying to get to. Let us go back. I am just going to

22 put this, for right now, Deposition Exhibit -- We are

23 going to have someone do that so we don't to stop. Let

24 us go through -- let's take Deposition Exhibit No. 2,




44

1 which is the original note.

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. As I said, I am looking at a copy. The

4 original is 8-1/2 X 14, which is the Proof of Claim

5 exhibit which I am talking about and has been reduced

6 down to 8-1/2 X 11. Is that true?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. So the original note is four pages long,

9 correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. And then we have an endorsement to the left of

12 the signature, correct, on the last page of the note? I

13 am looking at that endorsement first.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Now, on this one, it looks like a stamp was

16 originally put on there and, it looks like someone put a

17 different stamp that says, "Residential Funding

18 Company," correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. LLC. And it looks like someone by the name of

21 L. Gray signed it, who was a limiting signing officer,

22 bringing the note from the original payee, who was

23 listed as Ditech, is that correct? The original payee

24 is Ditech?




45

1 A. The original lender was GMAC Mortgage, LLC

2 d/b/a Ditech.com.

3 Q. Okay. So that's the Ditech I was talking

4 about. Originally it was GMAC Mortgage, LLC. And so am

5 I to understand -- just to understand it, it looks to me

6 like this endorsement was from GMAC to GMAC -- or to

7 another GMAC entity called Residential Funding Company,

8 LLC, correct?

9 A. It was an endorsement from GMAC Mortgage, LLC

10 formerly known as GMAC Mortgage Corporation d/b/a

11 Ditech.com to Residential Funding Company, LLC.

12 Q. Which is another GMAC Company. Do you have

13 knowledge of that?

14 A. I do not.

15 Q. It was the lead debtor in their Chapter 11

16 bankruptcy. That's why I know that. It's not critical,

17 but that's what that endorsement does, correct?


19 Q. Do we know when that endorsement was placed on

20 there? Do you have any information that could show when

21 that endorsement took place? Would that be in the

22 collateral file?

23 A. No.

24 Q. So there is no information to know if that




46

1 took place right at the time of the initial loan or it

2 took place sometime thereafter?

3 A. I would not have that knowledge.

4 Q. Who would have that knowledge?

5 A. Residential Funding Company or GMAC Mortgage.

6 Q. But not any Beal company, correct?


8 Q. Okay. And if the signature from L. Gray is

9 not genuine, you would have no knowledge of that either,

10 correct?

11 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for speculation.

12 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. Just to follow up, you have no knowledge one

15 way or the other whether that's a genuine signature?

16 A. I do not.

17 Q. And there is nothing that you have seen in any

18 materials to indicate one way or the other that you

19 reviewed?

20 A. No.

21 Q. For the record, it's hard to read because of

22 the things I have been told. It says J. Gray, not L.

23 Gray. It's hard to read.

24 A. Yeah, I agree.




47

1 Q. Just so that we're on the second thing. So as

2 we're going through this note in terms of the ownership,

3 in terms of not the ownership, but as we're going

4 through the note, then the next page, which is attached

5 to Deposition Exhibit No. 2, that is a Allonge to

6 Promissory Note. Is this the one that's valid or the

7 one you said that was not valid?

8 A. The one that is valid.

9 Q. Okay. And this is the one that you mentioned

10 you can tell the date, but you can't tell from here,

11 correct? Is that what you're referring to?

12 MR. IARIA: Just for the record, that was the

13 second one we were talking about the date. Exhibit 4 is

14 for the second from LNV to Beal. I don't think we're at

15 that one yet.

16 MR. BACH: That's from the -- allison Martin

17 is the one we're talking about. This one goes with the

18 Allison Martin one. You are correct.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. Too many documents. I am trying to -- I

21 apologize. So this allonge, to me, I am just trying to

22 make sure, lists the note date. It doesn't have a date

23 on it. I am not saying allonge is supposed to. I am

24 just going through what's on here, and it appears to be




48

1 signed by someone by the name of Jason J. Vecchio, who

2 is from Residential Funding Company, LLC, is that true?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. And it looks like again to have two

5 stamps, one that was originally just an endorsement

6 stamp, and one which was put in the name of LNV

7 Corporation, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Now, do you know or have any knowledge of when

10 that stamp was placed on there, either one of those

11 stamps?

12 A. It would have been at or around the time that

13 we had actually acquired the loan.

14 Q. Okay. And what date was that?

15 A. When the note came in and it was documented as

16 being received, it was May 5, 2008.

17 Q. Now I think you said earlier that there was

18 some -- I am just guessing -- that there was not just

19 this note that was purchased from Residential Funding,

20 but there were a whole group of them most likely,

21 correct? You mentioned an asset purchase agreement?


23 case.

24 BY MR. BACH:




49

1 Q. Yes?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So on May 5, 2008, you acquired this and other

4 notes and that's how you can say what the date is,

5 correct?

6 A. The date that I am referring to is the date

7 that was documented that the original note was received

8 and cataloged into our system of record.

9 Q. What sort of procedure is used when a loan is

10 purchased or a new note is received in terms of

11 protection? Because obviously, as you stated earlier,

12 the original notes go into a fire-safe safe. Can you

13 give me an idea of what the procedure is?


15 case. We have the original with us.

16 MR. BACH: That's fine. I want to know what

17 the procedure is.

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. The chain of custody?

20 A. The seller would have sent the original loan

21 documents to the buyer, in this case, or the purchaser,

22 which would have been LNV Corporation. They would have

23 sent him, you know, Fed Ex or some type of mass shipping

24 and cataloged, recorded boxes, what inventory had --




50

1 what loans were in there. As those would have come in,

2 then the employees of the document control department

3 would go through and review all those files and document

4 when it was actually received for each one of the

5 different loans that was purchased. From that, they

6 would then develop the collateral files, scanned copies

7 of the original notes, put them in there, move the

8 original notes into the vault. Of course everything is

9 bar coded so that they can track it under the system of

10 record, document what documents came in as of the date

11 it was actually cataloged as being received, and then

12 they would have started, at the same time, working on

13 the assignments of mortgage and also the allonges for

14 each of the different loans that was purchased in that

15 portfolio.

16 Q. Now -- and I am going to go back to the chart

17 that you have. And this is done by -- and this is done

18 by CLMG Corp., correct, or is this done by LNV?

19 A. No. In 2008, MGC was the custodian of the

20 original loan documents, and then it changed in 2012 to

21 CLMG as being the custodian of the original one

22 document. So at that point it would have been MGC.

23 Q. Is there documentation in the collateral

24 file -- we will go through the collateral file in the




51

1 thing that shows the custody, who has the custody of the

2 note, like, for instance, when you send it out to -- for

3 the foreclosure, is there some sort of a chain of

4 custody that's kept?

5 A. There is, yes. It wouldn't be in this

6 collateral file for the original note. It would be in

7 the note jacket that's on site. It's in the vault. But

8 I think there is a copy with the original note that

9 shows when it was actually sent to the firm.

10 Q. Now, getting back to Maloney Deposition No. 2,

11 we have -- and I am just -- it looks like it says, "Pay

12 to the order of," then on an angle, it says, "LNV

13 Corporation." It looks like that's a second stamp, not

14 the same stamp obviously, or a typed out, and it's kind

15 of at an angle, correct?

16 A. I believe there is only one stamp. I think

17 the, "Pay to the order of without recourse, Residential

18 Funding, LLC," and then the name of the post funding

19 manager. That's all -- looks to me to be typed.

20 Q. To be typed on like a word processor type

21 thing and printed out?

22 A. The whole document was typed, and the only

23 things -- the LNV Corporation is a stamp and then you

24 have his original signature.




52

1 Q. Can I see the original for one second? I do

2 notice a difference between them and I am going to ask

3 you about it. So here, what I am looking at, it also

4 has a bar code, okay? What does that bar code mean?

5 That's not -- I know it's not on the copy of Deposition

6 Exhibit 2.

7 MR. IARIA: Just for the record, Deposition

8 Exhibit 2 is different than my copy is.

9 MR. BACH: Which I took right off the Proof of

10 Claim. That's where I got it from.

11 MR. IARIA: If I may offer some explanation to

12 that, that may be a redaction process by my office, it

13 includes the loan number, and that would be other

14 information that the law firm would typically redact,

15 but I don't know if -- and I am not going to kind of

16 testify -- but that may shed some light to it.

17 MR. BACH: Okay. I noticed that difference.

18 That's why I was asking.

19 Q. Do you know, is that part of the normal

20 process that you have?

21 A. That, I don't know. So normally your

22 documents don't have a bar code on it like that,

23 correct?

24 MR. IARIA: Objection. You're looking at the




53

1 original.

2 MR. BACH: Right. But we have had a

3 discussion -- you're not under oath -- Your attorney

4 said that that may be part of his law firm placing it on

5 there. I am asking --

6 MR. IARIA: No. I apologize. I am not trying

7 to testify here. My law firm's policy would be to

8 redact the loan numbers, not to add the bar code.

9 MR. BACH: Yes. But I all I trying training

10 to say is Deposition Exhibit No. 2 doesn't have anything

11 there.

12 MR. IARIA: Correct. That would be a PDF

13 system.

14 MR. BACH: I am just trying to figure out

15 where it came from is what I am trying to say, if you

16 didn't redact it.

17 Q. I am saying, is that bar code on original

18 documents normally?

19 A. On the ones from Residential Funding Company,

20 because this is their allonge document, I believe that's

21 how they all are drawn up.

22 Q. So what your understanding is is that is a

23 Residential Funding thing, not a Beal Company type

24 identification?




54

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. That's what I am looking for. Now I am

3 looking at the original. Okay. No. I am looking at

4 the original which is a lot clearer than the other one.

5 But this appears to be an original signature, correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And it's much clearer than the other one, but

8 it's the same as Deposition Exhibit No. 2, correct, that

9 part is?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Now, would the LNV Corporation stamp have been

12 placed there by someone from your -- from Beal

13 Companies, or would it have been done by GMAC?

14 A. That would have been us. It would have been

15 us.

16 Q. Then you testified on Deposition Exhibit

17 No. 3, the last page, the sixth page that's attached to

18 the Proof of Claim is -- you testified this was included

19 in error, attached to the Proof of Claim. It has no

20 value, it is not in existence, correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. There is no reliance, I assume, upon anybody

23 for any purpose in this sixth page, correct?

24 A. Correct.




55

1 Q. Then we get to the last -- the last allonge,

2 which is Deposition Exhibit No. 3, and then do you have

3 the original of that?

4 A. Sure.

5 Q. I don't want to lose it.

6 A. I don't either.

7 Q. In the maze of paper. I am sure you will get

8 in big trouble if you do. So then we have the note

9 allonge from LNV Corporation from Allison Martin. Now

10 who is Allison Martin? Let's start there.

11 A. She is the vice president of document

12 control.

13 Q. Okay. It lists her as attorney-in-fact. Why

14 wouldn't it say, "Vice President of Document Control"

15 instead of, "Attorney-in-fact?"

16 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for a legal

17 conclusion.

18 THE WITNESS: I believe it's because there is

19 a POA which authorizes her to sign as an

20 attorney-in-fact.

21 Q. Is her job primarily to sign documents?


23 THE WITNESS: It is a part of her job

24 description, yes.




56

1 BY MR. BACH:

2 Q. Approximately, to your knowledge, if you know,

3 how many -- does she sign -- how many of these does she

4 sign a day, a week, a year?


6 THE WITNESS: That, I don't know.

7 BY MR. BACH:

8 Q. How long have you known Allison Martin?

9 MR. IARIA: Objection. I don't know if he

10 testified that he personally knows her.

11 BY MR. BACH:

12 Q. Do you know Allison Martin? Let's start

13 there.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. That's a good point. I can deal with that

16 correction. How long have you known her?

17 A. Since I started with Beal back in December of

18 2000.

19 Q. Do you know how long she has worked there?

20 A. I think she came -- She was either there right

21 before me or right after. So she has been there for

22 quite some time.

23 Q. How long has she been vice president, do you

24 know?




57

1 A. That, I don't know.

2 Q. Had she always been a vice president? I mean,

3 if you don't know, you don't know. I am just trying to

4 figure it out.

5 A. Yeah. That, I don't know.

6 Q. You said she is also vice president. Is her

7 office close to yours, on the same floor?

8 MR. IARIA: Objection, relevance. Where are

9 we going with this?

10 MR. BACH: Let him answer the question. I

11 will move on from there.

12 A. We are on the same floor, but opposite sides

13 of the building.

14 Q. Does she actually prepare the documents

15 herself or does someone else do that for her to your

16 knowledge?

17 MR. IARIA: Objection. You are having him

18 testify as to someone else. Speculation.

19 MR. BACH: That's why I said, "To your

20 knowledge." If he doesn't know, he doesn't know.


22 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

23 BY MR. BACH:

24 Q. Does she also work for MGC?




58

1 A. She works for CLMG.

2 Q. But if she worked for CLMG, but she prepares

3 -- to your knowledge -- that's all I am asking --

4 documents for the other Beal entities or only for CLMG?

5 A. No. She does it for all the Beal entities,

6 and there were some earlier documents that she had done

7 under -- for MGC post closing as well.

8 Q. Let's get back to Deposition Exhibit No. 3.

9 And I think earlier you mentioned that you knew a date

10 that this happened. What date was that?

11 A. At or around May 3, 2013.

12 Q. Okay. May 3, 2013. And if you know, why

13 was -- why was this allonge done on May 3, 2013?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Was it part of some sort of an asset purchase

16 between LNV and Beal Bank?

17 A. Oh, it was -- the loan transferred ownership

18 from LNV Corporation to Beal Bank, U.S.A. That happened

19 prior to this date. However, because there were

20 multiple loans that transferred from that one investor

21 to another, all the allonges and all the assignment of

22 mortgages were being done simultaneously as that

23 transfer had occurred. And this one was actually for

24 this particular loan done May 3, 2013.




59

1 Q. So there was some sort -- I am just asking.

2 Was there an asset purchase agreement or was it done

3 informally?


5 Q. So at some time prior to that, the loan was

6 purchased by Beal Bank? Is there actually money that

7 goes forward or is it just a transfer?

8 MR. IARIA: Objection. Can you specify a time

9 line on that question?

10 BY MR. BACH:

11 Q. Let's go back. I will come back to that

12 question in a second.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Do you know when this loan was actually

15 transferred? You said it happened before May 5th of

16 2013.

17 A. The transfer was supposed to be effective as

18 of December 2012.

19 Q. December 1st?

20 A. I don't recall the actual day.

21 Q. Okay. So just so I understand, what was

22 supposed to have happened was that sometime in December

23 2012, I am guessing the prior year, correct?

24 A. December 2012, yeah.




60

1 Q. You said '13. I want to make sure we are all

2 clear. Sometime in December 2012, the loan changed

3 ownership from LNV to Beal Bank. Is that what you're

4 telling me?

5 A. It was effective as of the December 2012 date,

6 the transfer from the LNV investor to the Beal Bank

7 U.S.A. investor.

8 Q. Is there a series of documents which shows

9 that transfer, or is there any documents that confirm

10 that, anything like that?

11 A. The Notice of Service or Notice of Ownership

12 Transfer that was dated January 20th or 29, 2013.

13 Q. So that's the only document which shows --

14 There is no internal documents which show a transfer of

15 ownership or anything like that?

16 A. Not that I am aware of.

17 Q. It was decided one day that it would be

18 transferred. But there is no internal documents that

19 would show it on the computer system on a certain date?

20 Would it be entered in the servicing notes?

21 A. It wouldn't have been documented on the LPS

22 System. It was an internal business decision to move

23 from LNV Corporation to Beal Paying U.S.A.

24 Q. What you were referring to is -- I will call




61

1 it Deposition Exhibit No. 5. You got it. Okay. I will

2 give you the original one. I'm sorry.

3 A. Okay.




7 date.)

8 BY MR. BACH:

9 Q. You have the original. Good. Okay. I didn't

10 know what happened to the allonge. It's right there.

11 That's the original?

12 A. Before you ask me questions, this is only a

13 portion.

14 Q. Do you have a full copy of it?

15 A. You know what, I'm sorry. I am thinking of

16 something else. This is the letter that was sent out.

17 Q. Okay. That's what I wanted --

18 A. Sorry.

19 Q. If I only have half of it, it's happened

20 before. I am sure it will happen again. Can you please

21 tell me what Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 5 is?

22 A. It is the Notification of Assignment, Sale or

23 Transfer of the mortgage loan.

24 Q. Okay. On here it mentions December 31st of




62

1 2012, true? In the first paragraph?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Okay. Now, could you tell me a little bit

4 about the preparation of this and how that's done?

5 A. What do you mean?

6 Q. Obviously what we talked about earlier is that

7 there was a transfer of ownership sometime in December

8 that references December 31st, okay? Is this sent out

9 to a group of people who prepare these documents?

10 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

11 Q. I am looking for a little background on how --

12 what's the procedure when it's decided that you're going

13 to transfer a loan, such as this one, from LNV Bank

14 to -- Is there a procedure, someone who takes charge, to

15 make sure that these go out?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. What would that be?

18 A. This one here would have been -- the

19 acquisitions group would have spearheaded the transfer.

20 The management would have been involved with making the

21 decision as to, you know, the letters, when they were

22 going to actually be sent out and the effective date of

23 the change.

24 Q. Okay. Now, the Proof of Claim is No. 6.




63

1 (WHEREUPON, Deposition

2 Exhibit No. 6 was marked

3 for Identification as of

4 this date.)

5 BY MR. BACH:

6 Q. I am showing you what's been marked as Maloney

7 Deposition Exhibit No. 6, which is a copy of the Proof

8 of Claim. If you want to take a look at that document

9 real quickly.

10 MR. IARIA: My exhibit is missing -- the copy

11 I brought doesn't have all the attachments. If you plan

12 on going over them, I think it's mostly the mortgage and

13 note on the back.

14 MR. BACH: Yes. Okay. I just want to make

15 sure that you have seen it.

16 Q. Now, again, as I told you, I represent a

17 debtor. Most of the time I have been doing bankruptcy

18 work -- only a couple creditors here and there -- they

19 are usually not what I call commercial lenders, people

20 that normally service notes or anything like that. So

21 all my questions may be things that are elementary and I

22 apologize for this. Is there a procedure that when

23 someone files bankruptcy as to the Proof of Claim is

24 then sent out to a law firm in order to prepare that?




64

1 Is there a procedure for that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. And what that procedure?

4 A. That is going to be DMI procedure, because

5 they are the ones that handle day-to-day with regards to

6 the filing of the POC claims.

7 Q. I am guessing DMI is Dovenmuehle?

8 A. Dovenmuehle. Sorry.

9 Q. You said they are a subservicer and they take

10 care of that?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Now, if I want to ask someone at Dovenmuehle a

13 question about this, is there a person who is in charge

14 over there that would be a good person to ask?

15 A. It would be the manager of their bankruptcy

16 department.

17 Q. Do you know who that is?

18 A. I believe that's Scott, Burris, B-U-R-R-I-S.

19 Q. Any other names that you can think of?

20 A. Not off the top of my head, no.

21 Q. So someone from Scott Burris' department would

22 then send this to Freedman Anselmo with the information

23 for the amounts that are owed, is that correct?

24 A. Correct.




65

1 Q. The amounts that would be -- would there be be

2 attached any information regarding the loan to your

3 knowledge?

4 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for privileged

5 information.

6 MR. BACH: How is that privileged?

7 MR. IARIA: Well, the communication between

8 the client and what you're saying to the law firm.

9 MR. BACH: I am asking what's it going to

10 include. I am not asking for specifics, just in

11 general. Does it include the amount?

12 A. The amount of what?

13 Q. The amount that's owed? Where does that

14 information come from? Does the law firm basically

15 calculate the amount that's owed or is it done by

16 Dovenmuehle?

17 A. It is provided by Dovenmuehle's counsel.

18 Q. What sort of information would be provided?

19 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for --

20 potentially calls for privileged information and work

21 product.

22 THE WITNESS: The amount of the arrearages or

23 the amount of the total claim, the fees and costs that

24 have been assessed to the loan.




66

1 BY MR. BACH:

2 Q. Would the mortgage be there, the note?

3 A. In this case the note was already with counsel

4 based on the foreclosure action that was filed in July

5 of 2000 -- or June, July 2011. Counsel would also have

6 had a copy of the mortgage at that point in time as

7 well.

8 Q. Now, would it also include a direction on

9 whose behalf the Proof of Claim would be filed in?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. So that instruction would not come from

12 the law firm, that would come from Dovenmuehle,

13 correct?

14 A. That would -- Yes, it would come from

15 Dovenmuehle.

16 Q. The information provided from Dovenmuehle to a

17 law firm is anticipation of a -- for preparation of a

18 document, such as the Proof of Claim, that will be filed

19 in the bankruptcy court, correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. It's not for any other purpose?

22 A. Say that again.

23 MR. IARIA: Clarify.

24 BY MR. BACH:




67

1 Q. The reason why the information is transmitted

2 from Dovenmuehle to the law firm is to prepare the Proof

3 of Claim, not for any other purpose?

4 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for speculation.

5 MR. BACH: What speculation is there?

6 MR. IARIA: "Not for any other purpose."

7 BY MR. BACH:

8 Q. I said, why else would they send information

9 that would be to put together a Proof of Claim than to

10 prepare the Proof of Claim?

11 MR. IARIA: Just note the objection.

12 THE WITNESS: It wouldn't.

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. But there is no other reason to send

15 financial -- "This is how much is owed as of the date of

16 the bankruptcy," correct?

17 A. I'm sorry. Say that one more time.

18 Q. There would be no other reason to send a

19 letter from Dovenmuehle to the law firm and saying,

20 "This is the amount that's owed. This is the amount of

21 the arrears. This is the number of payments that they

22 are behind. These are the other costs and fees," than

23 to prepare the Proof of Claim?

24 A. It would have been more than just a letter or




68

1 other documents. It would be -- With this particular

2 loan, what was sent across would have been anything that

3 has to do with what was owed, what was in arrears, what

4 was assessed to the loan and any other documents that

5 was needed by counsel in order to file a Proof of

6 Claim.

7 Q. Who is David Allison?

8 MR. IARIA: Objection. Build a foundation on

9 that or even --

10 BY MR. BACH:

11 Q. Do you know David Allison?

12 A. I do not.

13 MR. IARIA: I don't know where you're getting

14 the claim at all.

15 BY MR. BACH:

16 Q. Now, the Proof of Claim on Page 3 of the Proof

17 of Claim, the original part, the original claim had been

18 filed on January -- was filed on January 2nd, but filed

19 on January -- it's signed, according to this, on January

20 3rd, and filed on January 2nd. I can tell it's January

21 2nd, because if you look at the top of the page, it has

22 the file stamp. I am not asking you why the difference

23 in date. You didn't prepare the document. I get that.

24 Okay?




69

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. What I am asking -- and if you go back to Page

3 1, you can see that the claimant is LNV Corporation,

4 correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And according to the letter that we discussed,

7 which was Deposition Exhibit 5, the loan was transferred

8 effective December 31st. How is that possible?

9 A. Because DMI, nor was counsel aware, that the

10 entity was being changed at that time. The letter that

11 went out to notify everybody was January 20, 2013. So

12 counsel and DMI filed the claim on behalf of LNV

13 Corporation at that point in time because that was

14 who -- they were advising, the investor was, at that

15 point in time. Also, the original note, when counsel

16 filed the claim, it had been in their office since June

17 2011, they filed the claim on behalf of LNV Corporation

18 because that's who they knew to be in ownership at the

19 time.

20 Q. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

21 MR. IARIA: I just wanted to make one

22 distinction. Well, I am going to withdraw any -- That's

23 fine.

24 BY MR. BACH:




70

1 Q. But you would agree, based upon what you have

2 told me already, that on the date the proof of claim was

3 filed, LNV did not own the loan?

4 A. Ownership was transferred to Beal Bank U.S.A.

5 Q. Okay. Now, if -- now the proof of claim has

6 several different parts and was filed. The first one,

7 Page 4 of 4, is just the Proof of Claim form itself.

8 Then there is a mortgage attached. And we are going to

9 talk more about the mortgage. I promise we will get to

10 it, okay? And then we get a couple more questions

11 about -- then we have the note that we took that we have

12 been talking about for a long time, which is also

13 Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 2, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Okay. Now, my question to you is -- and we

16 are going to need the original -- Can I see the original

17 note again real quick? Can I see it real quick? It may

18 take care of my question.

19 And then at the end, we have -- and after

20 the note, we have some detail about amounts that are due

21 the date of the filing of the Petition, correct,

22 Mortgage Proof of Claim attachment?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Which is two pages long, correct?




71

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. The information that we were discussing

3 earlier that would have been provided by Dovenmuehle, is

4 this information correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, as part of the Proof of Claim process,

7 and again, it maybe my being -- not knowing the process

8 at all -- once the Proof of Claim is prepared, does the

9 law firm just file it or does it get reviewed by someone

10 at Dovenmuehle or the people that own the loan?

11 A. It would have been reviewed prior to being

12 submitted for -- to the court.

13 Q. So is that part of the normal process that

14 that would have happened?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. If a Proof of Claim was filed without being

17 reviewed, would you see that as a problem?

18 MR. IARIA: Can you specify? Reviewed by

19 anyone or --

20 MR. BACH: Reviewed by someone at

21 Dovenmuehle. I am talking about at Dovenmuehle or MGC

22 or someone related to -- that was the owner of the loan?

23 A. Say the again one more time.

24 Q. I will restate it. I am just trying to --




72

1 let's just go back for a second. Normally how many days

2 does it take for a Proof of Claim to be reviewed once

3 it's prepared?


5 Q. That was part -- I was trying to think of an

6 easier way of asking the question. So if it was -- So

7 it could have been -- my question is, if it was reviewed

8 -- and let's just say it was January 3rd, right after

9 the first of the year, okay -- I think you said sometime

10 in December that there hadn't been a decision made to

11 transfer the loan, although it was effective December

12 31st. Fine. Would that -- How long -- Wouldn't someone

13 at Dovenmuehle have picked up the fact that the loan

14 was -- that it had the wrong claimant on it at some

15 point before it was reviewed?

16 MR. IARIA: Objection, you're making a legal

17 conclusion in your statement or in your question.

18 THE WITNESS: DMI would have only known about

19 the change when we actually informed them of the

20 change. When we did notify them of the change, there

21 was a transfer of claim that was filed from LNV to Beal

22 Bank U.S.A.

23 BY MR. BACH:

24 Q. Okay. Well, that's a different issue. But at




73

1 the time you're saying that prior to December 31st, no

2 one told Dovenmuehle that the loan had been

3 transferred? That's really what the answer to the

4 question is.

5 A. Dovenmuehle was not aware at that time.

6 Q. That was the answer to my question. We can

7 talk about legal semantics another time.

8 A. No. That's fine.

9 Q. That was the answer to the question I was

10 looking for.

11 Now, there are two assignments, correct?

12 A. Correct, one from MERS to LNV Corporation and

13 then from LNV Corporation to Beal Bank U.S.A.

14 MR. IARIA: Paul, if you can distribute the

15 copies, I don't have extras. One copy of the Assignment

16 of Mortgage was a certified copy, and one was an

17 original that was brought.

18 MR. BACH: The last page is the certification,

19 so you can tell which one is which.

20 Q. This which this one goes with this is actually

21 the problem. That's exactly what it is. I've got it

22 now. I will distribute -- Let me just -- so this is the

23 original mortgage. I have this here, okay? The

24 certified one that we talked about. I think we talked




74

1 about the fact that we're going to make this a

2 deposition exhibit, correct?

3 MR. IARIA: If you would like to, that's

4 fine. That would be 7, correct?




8 date.)

9 MR. IARIA: After this line of questioning

10 with regards to Exhibit 7, can we take a break?

11 MR. BACH: I was going to try and get through

12 the mortgage and take a break.

13 MR. IARIA: Perfect. All right.

14 MR. BACH: I was going to talk about the

15 mortgage and then we will talk about the accounting and

16 other issues after lunch. That was my plan.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. So this assignment is from -- so this would

19 be 8. This would be 9.

20 (WHEREUPON, Deposition Exs.

21 Nos. 8-9 were marked for


23 date.)

24 BY MR. BACH:




75

1 Q. Okay. For the record, we have a certified

2 copy of a mortgage, which is Maloney Deposition Exhibit

3 No. 7. There is an Assignment from MERS, Mortgage

4 Electronic Registration System, to LNV Corporation,

5 which was recorded 9-3 of 2008, which is Maloney

6 Deposition Exhibit No. 8, and I will give you a copy of

7 that so you have that. And then there is another

8 Assignment of Mortgage, which is Maloney Deposition

9 Exhibit No. 9, which is from LNV Corporation to Beal

10 Bank U.S.A., and it was recorded on March 13th of 2013.

11 And, Counsel, you have copies of them.

12 MR. IARIA: Correct. Just for the record, I

13 am going to object to the entire line of questioning as

14 to the Assignment of Mortgage. It has no bearing on the

15 specifically endorsed note under Illinois law. You know

16 with that said, that is my objection for the record.

17 BY MR. BACH:

18 Q. Now, you were not able to bring with you today

19 a copy of the original mortgage. Why is that?

20 A. I did bring a copy of the original mortgage.

21 Q. Okay. You don't have the original mortgage

22 itself?


24 Q. Okay. That was really my question. You don't




76

1 have it. Why were you not able to bring that original

2 mortgage with you?

3 A. We never received it.

4 Q. So you never received it from GMAC?

5 A. We received -- not the original mortgage, no.

6 Q. Is that typical?

7 A. No, but it does happen.

8 Q. There is no notes anywhere in your system

9 which indicate receiving the original mortgage? Is that

10 how you're able to say that?

11 A. That would be in the Master Track system.

12 That's where we document the receipt of the original

13 loan documents.

14 Q. That's a system that CLMG has?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Not MGC, correct, at that time?

17 A. At that time MGC was custodian of the original

18 records, then shifted over to CMG. It's the same system

19 just being managed by CLMG.

20 Q. What did you say it was called?

21 A. Master track.

22 Q. And then the assignment, which I have been

23 provided, and you just -- and all that was done was that

24 someone went to the Recorder of Deeds Office of Kane




77

1 County, Illinois and asked them to certify a copy. This

2 is the copy as they have it, correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Okay. And the same thing can be said of

5 Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 8, correct? This is the

6 one from MERS to LNV Corporation, correct? That's

7 Maloney Deposition Exhibit 8?

8 A. The original assignment I have brought with me

9 today.

10 Q. And you also have the assignment from --

11 that's Maloney Deposition No. 9 as well, correct?

12 A. The one from LNV to Beal Paying U.S.A.,

13 correct.

14 Q. Now, let's talk about Maloney Deposition

15 Exhibit No. 8, which is the one assignment that went

16 from MERS to LNV Corporation. Okay. Now, is it typical

17 that the person who assigns the mortgage is different

18 from the person who endorses the note?

19 MR. IARIA: Objection, calls for speculation

20 and objection to the relevancy.

21 BY MR. BACH:

22 Q. If you know, you know. If you don't, you

23 don't.

24 A. I don't know.




78

1 Q. I just note that Michael Mead signed this one,

2 and a different person signed the other one. I am

3 wondering if you know why.

4 A. I do not know.

5 Q. Okay. Now let's go to the last one, which I

6 think is Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 9, which you

7 will know probably more because this one was also signed

8 by Allison Martin, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Okay. Is there a system in place -- is there

11 a reason why the mortgages would have been assigned

12 earlier than the note was endorsed?

13 A. That would have been at or around the same

14 time. I mean, the allonge was documented in there as of

15 5-3-2003. Depends on when they are working on the

16 loans, when they get to doing the assignments and the

17 allonges, if they are doing them simultaneously, that

18 would be a question for the Document Control Department

19 with regards to their procedures as to the assignments

20 and the allonges.

21 Q. So you have no explanation why the mortgage

22 was assigned almost two months before the note was

23 endorsed?

24 MR. IARIA: Objection to mischaracterizing the


Denise

Highlight



79

1 testimony. I don't know -- based on -- I assume you're

2 referring to Exhibit 4 for the date, but I don't know if

3 it's been testified that that's the specific date that

4 it was endorsed.

5 MR. BACH: He testified earlier that May 3,

6 2013, which may have been based upon Deposition Exhibit

7 No. 4, was the date that the note was endorsed.

8 A. I said at or around that date.

9 Q. Around that time.

10 A. Around that time.

11 Q. I note that the mortgage -- Assignment of

12 Mortgage was recorded almost two months earlier on 3-13

13 of 2013 and is dated on there of March 5, 2013. And I

14 am wondering why there would be a difference of almost

15 two months?

16 A. I don't know. I don't know.

17 MR. BACH: I think that's all we have on the

18 mortgage. I promised we would take a break now.

19 (Recess taken.)

20 BY MR. BACH:

21 Q. We are not going to mark this as an exhibit,

22 but I have been handed the original collateral file from

23 the lender, correct?

24 A. Correct.




80

1 Q. That's what this is?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And it's in a red folder with -- I am guessing

4 it's a loan number on the side, 628243, correct?

5 A. That's the bar code loan number for when they

6 pull it up in the system. That's how they look at the

7 file.

8 Q. Okay. Now, there is a left and a right side

9 of this file. The right side appears to have copies of

10 all the assignments and a copy of the note and a copy of

11 the mortgage, not the original one, but it has those

12 things there. On the left side, it has a statement from

13 something called Home Connect Lenders Services, LLC. It

14 looks like a bill for like $752.50. What is that for?

15 I am just wondering what it is. It's dated in 2007, so

16 I suspect it's from the original loan maybe?

17 A. I don't know. It's something that GMAC was

18 handling.

19 Q. So you have no idea on that side of the folder

20 what those three documents are, correct?

21 A. I don't.

22 Q. It didn't look like it had anything to do with

23 anything. That's why I was trying to figure out why

24 they are there. And the other thing is, it says on




81

1 there, it says, "This loan may be pledged to the FRB San

2 Francisco, LNV." What does that mean?

3 A. We have particular loans that are in our

4 portfolio that are pledged to the Federal --

5 Q. Reserve Bank?

6 A. Reserve Bank, yeah.

7 Q. Why would that be?

8 A. Because we draw a lot of our funding from the

9 Federal Home Loan Bank when we go out and acquire

10 loans.

11 Q. It says, "May be pledged." Why doesn't it

12 say, "Would be pledged?"

13 MR. IARIA: Objection.

14 MR. BACH: I am just trying to figure out what

15 it is. It shows a receive date of -- an enter date of

16 March 17th of 2010 it looks like. Any idea what that

17 date would be?

18 A. No. You know, correction. Nautilus would

19 have scanned the following with document imaging. So

20 the documents that are in there, some of them come out

21 of the origination file or the original collateral

22 file.

23 Q. Then this is the file which is kept in the

24 vault, right?




82

1 A. No. This is the file that's kept in one of

2 the file rooms. The one that's kept in the vault is the

3 actual note jacket which would have housed the original

4 note for this.

5 Q. So the note is kept separately from the

6 collateral file?


8 Q. Now here's some documents which I am going to

9 hold the original for me to look at because it has the

10 -- I am going to give you a copy for the time being.

11 We're going to look at that, but what this -- and it has

12 the POC Breakdown Summary. It has a whole bunch of

13 documents, it looks like, that you brought with you

14 today that we had not previously seen, correct?


16 Q. So why don't we just call this Group, and call

17 it -- it will be No. 10.

18 MR. IARIA: 10, yes.




22 date.)

23 BY MR. BACH:

24 Q. I think we're done with documents. That's the


Denise

Highlight



83

1 stuff you brought with you, correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you prepare what's being called Maloney

4 Deposition Exhibit No. 10?

5 A. No. Chris Whiteley.

6 Q. Which is one of the two people you mentioned

7 that helped you prepare?

8 A. Correct. There should be a dark green.

9 Q. I don't see a dark green. That's why I was

10 trying to match it up.

11 A. I'm sorry.

12 Q. You're fine. I am just trying to understand

13 it.

14 MR. IARIA: I'm sorry. That's the late

15 charges. That's not going to have an invoice attached.

16 BY MR. BACH:

17 Q. So if I start with pink, I am going to start

18 right here for filing fees and court costs. Okay. I

19 think I've got idea. Okay. I have been handed what has

20 been labeled as Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 10

21 today. And what it appears to be is -- the original is

22 colored and has a color associated with copies of -- it

23 looks like internal invoices -- that are labeled LPS

24 Desktop Invoice Management for each one of the sections




84

1 of the Proof of Claim. Does that sound about right?

2 A. Each one of the sections of the Proof of Claim

3 as it relates to fees and costs on Page --

4 Q. The last two pages of the Proof of Claim, the

5 last two?

6 A. Not the last two. It's only the first page.

7 Actually you're right, the last two.

8 Q. Because of the way they filed it?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. Let me ask you another question. We talked

11 about this a little earlier. We talked about a little

12 bit earlier when we're talking about, let's just say an

13 amount for the foreclosure process, $410 at the bottom

14 of the first page. Then we go to the yellow I think it

15 is?

16 A. I think the darker of the yellow, so it should

17 be advertised cost.

18 Q. Advertisement costs, which is foreclosure

19 process server, but that's fine. So it goes --

20 A. I think you're grabbing the wrong tab. Flip to

21 that page right there.

22 Q. If you can just explain to me what this is,

23 maybe that's the best way of doing it.

24 A. This is the breakdown of the fees and costs




85

1 that have been assessed of this loan and the

2 corresponding invoices for each one of the different

3 charges that have been assessed. The color coding on

4 here corresponds with the tabs that are also -- that

5 match the same color and it gives you that actual fee,

6 when it was billed, and when it was, you know, to the

7 loan, and what it was billed for.

8 Q. Now as I page through here, it looks like the

9 documents that are attached to the Summary Document,

10 that are attached, looks like LPS Desktop Invoice

11 Management Invoice Detail, okay? That is not the actual

12 invoice. Are there actual invoices as well?

13 A. There are, but some of those wouldn't be

14 included in here. I wasn't able to bring those and get

15 those in time, but there are actual invoices in there,

16 if you flip to like the safeguard properties, which

17 actually shoes the invoice and what was actually -- you

18 know, what they actually charge for.

19 Q. Okay. So let's just go with the safeguard.

20 That's going to have some questions for me to begin

21 with.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Which is a page -- for the Safeguard one, just

24 to help you, starts with, this says "LPS Loan Results"




86

1 it looks like. Did you find it?

2 A. Yes. I think it's the same one. I am just

3 looking, 6-4-2013?

4 Q. Now we have this. And it looks like there is

5 a whole -- that's probably the most documents of

6 anything in this document. It goes on for quite a while

7 with different invoices. And it appears that this range

8 in date all the way up to 2011 it looks like, near the

9 back, and most of these invoices appear to be for like

10 $10 it appears. Is that the case?

11 A. It's broken out $9 to $10.

12 Q. Can you describe what this is?

13 A. This is a property inspection. They go out to

14 make sure that the property hasn't been vacated. So

15 it's just an on-site visual to make sure that there is

16 no visible damage and the property hasn't been vacated.

17 Q. Exactly.

18 A. It's done on a monthly basis.

19 Q. So why do you do that?

20 A. To protect our interest in the security for

21 the loan.

22 Q. Now, it appears -- we will get to that in a

23 second upon the spread sheet that you gave me. Those

24 inspections continue. Does that typically continue?




87

1 Does that -- do you do that for every single property

2 even if it's in default or it's not in default?

3 A. Only on properties in default.

4 Q. Okay. Why would that distinction be made?

5 A. Because we are not receiving payments and we

6 want to make sure that the property hasn't been vacated

7 or damaged in any way or harmed, our security interest

8 is, you know, being harmed in any way.

9 Q. For $9 or $10, what does the person do?

10 A. They go out, take pictures, report back any

11 visible damage, if there is any damage they can see from

12 the curb, from the street, and to check to see if the

13 property has been vacated.

14 Q. Okay. It appears that these are invoices, and

15 it does not appear whether there is an actual report.

16 Is the report only like this or does it actually have

17 some writing on it?

18 A. Which one are you looking at?

19 Q. I am speaking on a random. It says Page 53 at

20 the bottom. I just picked one out at random.

21 A. Each one is different. I mean, you know --

22 MR. IARIA: Paul, I make a general objection

23 on relevance. Could we bring it back to this case?

24 MR. BACH: I am talking about this case.




88

1 MR. IARIA: I know, but issues pertaining to

2 the bankruptcy case.

3 MR. BACH: This is an issue related to the

4 bankruptcy case. They are charging them money.

5 A. Yeah. They went out, they took pictures of

6 the property and they reported back whether it was

7 vacant or secured.

8 Q. Where do they report that it's vacant or

9 secured?

10 MR. IARIA: Paul, I am going to object for the

11 record. Your client is talking on the record again. I

12 couldn't hear what you said.

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. Where does it say that -- the information that

15 you just said, it says -- I can see the invoice. It

16 says, "Verify if vacant." Where does it say it wasn't

17 vacant or anything like that?

18 A. That's not actually stated on the invoice.

19 Q. So right here, is there another document,

20 another report that we're missing?

21 A. Not a report. It would be electronically

22 transferred onto the system and it would be documented

23 whether or not it was vacant or occupied.

24 Q. So it's just an e-mail is what it is?




89

1 A. No. It's some type of data coding that's

2 transported on to DMIs system from Safeguard.

3 Q. Because it just would seem to me if they are

4 transmitting pictures, that information should be along

5 with it. That's what it seems to me.

6 A. Again, this is a vendor used by DMI and how

7 that information is reported is between DMI and

8 Safeguard.

9 Q. Okay. Page 54 of that. Did you find it?

10 A. Mm-hmm.

11 Q. This invoice appears to be for 12-18-2011. It

12 looks like it's billed $40,445.

13 A. It's not -- this one for this particular

14 property for this order is $10. That is for mass

15 inspections that were recorded across the portfolio.

16 Q. This is the part of the total bill for

17 everybody?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. I see they all have numbers that are very

20 high, lots of money. Some are $38,000, some are -- the

21 next one is $47,000?

22 A. That's for the portfolio in its entirety.

23 What was billed on this loan was actually the $10. It

24 shows up at the top of the section. Not $40,000.




90

1 Q. Okay. And then let's call this Maloney

2 Deposition Exhibit No. 11.




6 date.)

7 MR. IARIA: The one starting 1-31-2007.

8 THE WITNESS: There is two.

9 MR. IARIA: Those two look the same.

10 MR. BACH: I thought they were the same. I

11 apologize.

12 MR. IARIA: They continue.

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. They are different documents though.

15 A. It's a continuation.

16 MR. IARIA: The transaction date, Paul, it

17 starts 1-31-2007 on one, and it starts on 10-17-11 on

18 the other.

19 BY MR. BACH:

20 Q. Is this from GMAC is what this one is?

21 A. When it was originated.

22 Q. 1-31-07?

23 A. Yeah. So this is from origination on until

24 the claim was filed and then --




91

1 MR. IARIA: For the purposes of

2 identification, if you want to start with '07.

3 MR. BACH: I think you're absolutely right.

4 Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realize they

5 were two different documents.

6 MR. IARIA: 11 and 12.




10 date.)

11 BY MR. BACH:

12 Q. Yeah. Let's do this one first. Okay we have

13 Maloney Deposition Exhibit No. 11 and 12. 11, it looks

14 like, starts 1-31-07, and 12 looks like it starts 10-17

15 of'11, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Could you explain to me what these documents

18 are, how they are generated?

19 A. Sure. This was put together by me and my

20 staff, and this is just a reconciliation of the payment

21 histories from when the loan was originated until now.

22 Q. And how was this generated?

23 A. This was actually generated from the payment

24 history screens, both GMAC and MGC.




92

1 Q. Did someone go through and actually do this

2 spread sheet?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Or can the LPS Desktop generate it

5 automatically?

6 A. No. This was done by my individual on my

7 staff.

8 Q. It's just a standard spread sheet that you use

9 to figure out defaults I am guessing, correct?

10 A. Just to put it in more easily readable format

11 than trying to go through all the histories and each one

12 are different. So this is just -- This is a

13 reconciliation of that.

14 Q. We will get to that when we -- in a second.

15 We will talk about the one that I was given previously.

16 This was meant to be a more clear definition of what was

17 provided in that because as I looked at loan histories

18 that are on those things, they are very difficult to

19 read, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And you were just trying to make it -- it

22 basically replaces that, correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Supplements it?




93

1 A. Supplemental, yes.

2 Q. It's a better word for it.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. But the information on that document and these

5 two documents is exactly the same?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. Which one of your assistants prepared

8 this?

9 A. Chris Whiteley.

10 Q. If you go through the category -- I know some

11 of these answers, but let me make sure -- when we look

12 through the top, and I am looking down, there is nothing

13 in the column that's Debtors and Trustees Reference

14 Number. Does that have a purpose? It's the first

15 column. I am going through columns.

16 A. Yeah. There is nothing in there. We didn't

17 put anything in there. We didn't feel it was relevant

18 for just showing how the payments were and everything

19 was assessed to this account during this time period.

20 Q. So that would -- would that normally be used

21 for determining which goes to the pre-petition and which

22 goes to the post petition when you're dealing with a

23 Chapter 13?

24 A. No. Actually it's kind of broken out over




94

1 here as far as pre-petition funds and post petition.

2 Q. I am trying to understand what it's normally

3 used for. What does Transaction Date mean?

4 A. That would have been when the actual

5 transaction occurred on the system.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. Or when the -- if you notice in there, too, we

8 have in there referencing to the bankruptcies, you know,

9 the Chapter 13, when it was filed. The date of 7-17-07,

10 and then we had the Motion of Relief, Order of Granting

11 Relief, Order Effective Date, and when it was actually

12 dismissed.

13 Q. Contractual, I assume, means the date it was

14 applied to on a contractual basis?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Now, when you have a Chapter 13, does it

17 divide between post petition and pre-petition?

18 A. It does. In this instance though, when the

19 borrower filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they were --

20 Q. It was post petition?

21 A. Yeah, it was post petition.

22 Q. But normally does it differentiate between

23 what is post petition, current funds, and what is

24 trustee funds typically?




95

1 A. Yes, it would.

2 Q. Does it keep a running total of what the

3 arrears would be?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, it says, "Post Petition paid through

6 date." I assume that -- well, what is that column used

7 for?

8 A. It would show post petition, when it was paid

9 through, if there were payments being applied with

10 regards to the post petition.

11 Q. And the Installment Payment is just the amount

12 that's technically due, correct?

13 A. The principal interest, taxes and insurance,

14 yes.

15 Q. It's the amount you're looking for

16 essentially?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And then the Total Funds would be to keep

19 track if something is short so some portion has to go

20 into a suspense account?

21 A. Or more.

22 Q. Or more. And the other part would into the

23 suspense account?

24 A. Or the whole amount may go into suspense or a




96

1 holding because a suspense account is a holding

2 account. Then it would be redirected to be applied to

3 the payments if it was enough to make a full monthly

4 payment.

5 Q. Just so I understand, I can look at a lot of

6 this stuff later on and figure it out. I don't want to

7 lose you. So if you have on this instance, just to make

8 an example, and sometimes there was $3,530.35, because

9 that was the amount of the payment. The payment would

10 be shown immediately as being current because it's

11 exactly the correct amount. If it's above or below

12 that, that's when the problem starts, correct?

13 A. What do you mean by, "problem starts?"

14 Q. Meaning how to account for it.

15 A. Well, if you would, and bear with me, we could

16 go to a specific example regarding this loan. If you

17 look down on Line 36 -- 35, Funds to suspense, 12-21-08,

18 $7368.92, which would have been enough to cover two

19 payments, which the payment at the time was $3684.46.

20 So when that was received, it went into suspense on

21 12-21-08. 12-23-08, it got applied to the September and

22 August 2008 payments.

23 Q. Thank you. That does help.

24 A. That's the only time there was any funds in




97

1 suspense with regards to this loan.

2 Q. We kind of touched on this earlier. On that

3 particular transaction, the money comes in. Does it get

4 deposited -- well, that would be because it was still

5 GMAC. Let's just take the example that it came into

6 MGC. Would MGC deposit it into its own account then and

7 then make payments out when it applies it?

8 A. Makes payments to what?

9 Q. To the investor, to the company that actually

10 owns the loan.


12 THE WITNESS: The funds would come in, they

13 would be documented as far as the transaction was when

14 they were received, they would be documented when they

15 were applied, and then I think they would remit it the

16 investor on a monthly basis.

17 MR. IARIA: Counsel, just for the record, I

18 have been just handed these documents that may explain a

19 lot of the questions you may even have to ask. I don't

20 know if you want to go through your remaining material

21 and then go through the questions you have for the sake

22 of time and then potentially issue a second set of

23 interrogatories based on these, or something else, so

24 we're not at -- I mean, so you're not going through them




98

1 while we're waiting for you.

2 MR. BACH: I have never seen it before, so --

3 MR. IARIA: I understand that. But I think

4 they probably do explain many of the -- many of the

5 questions that you did plan on asking.

6 BY MR. BACH:

7 Q. Now, I see here as part of the GMAC, so you

8 may not know, but it looks like the principal balance

9 doesn't go down. Is there a reason for that?

10 A. This is an adjustable rate note, and the first

11 so many years, based on the terms of the note, would go

12 directly to interest. And I think when it becomes --

13 after the interest only period, then it would start

14 being applied to principal balance.

15 Q. Interest first loan?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. It didn't look right. That's why I looked at

18 that. When it says, "Late fees and other charges," what

19 is other charges?

20 A. The other charges would be reflective on

21 here.

22 MR. IARIA: For the record, he is pointing to

23 Group Exhibit 10.

24 MR. BACH: This is Exhibit No. 12. Here's




99

1 the -- do you have it? Response to Discovery? I have

2 another copy if you want it. You don't want to help me

3 kill trees, huh?

4 Have you ever seen this before?

5 A. I have.

6 Q. Did you help in its preparation?

7 A. I did not.

8 Q. Now, I just want to go through with you, if

9 you go back near the end of the legal part of it when

10 they respond, and there should be a page after the Proof

11 of Service by Mail where it talks about descriptions,

12 payee transactions.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Do you know what this document is?

15 A. This would be the coding for the payee

16 transactions I think for -- this would be for June now

17 because it's dated Training Manual 2-14-2005.

18 Q. This is not part of the system that you use?

19 Is that what it is or is there another one for you?

20 Because it looks like then we have the pay history that

21 you were referring to that says Dovenmuehle Mortgage on

22 the top of it as part of it.

23 A. Yeah. The key for Dovenmuehle Mortgage

24 payment history that's here, if you turn to Page -- they




100

1 are not numbered -- it says Page at the top, A2155.

2 Q. A2?

3 A. Yeah, A2155. It would have been dated

4 12-30-2011. I think you went too far. There you go.

5 Right here. There is the codes and what the codes

6 actually represent. So if you see those, like a FHA

7 penalty, (K) Interest due, paid.

8 Q. So you're saying the first page is for GMAC?

9 A. I think these Description Payee Transaction

10 Codes are for --

11 Q. Are for GMAC?

12 A. Are for GMAC Payment History. For the

13 Dovenmuehle, it's actually on --

14 Q. The bottom is what you're saying.

15 A. The bottom of the pages.

16 Q. These all look to say Dovenmuehle at the top.

17 That's why I am a little confused, I guess.

18 A. Dovenmuehle is the subservicer for MGC. So

19 these would have been the payment histories from 2010 to

20 current.

21 Q. So I don't have here the ones that GMAC

22 prepared, correct?

23 A. It's not attached.

24 Q. Payment codes don't match up to what's here is




101

1 what my question really is, correct? The payment codes

2 are kind of irrelevant?

3 A. Yes, irrelevant for this history, correct.

4 Q. Which is why I couldn't use it to read that

5 when I went through it the first time, right?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. That makes sense. If we go beyond that, we

8 have the note, right?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. With the additional allonges which you said is

11 not valid, correct?

12 A. The one that had LNV, Inc.?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. It has an Assignment of Mortgage, correct?

16 A. It has the Assignment of Mortgage from LNV

17 Corporation.

18 Q. Then we have some Desktop LPS Invoice

19 Management, that was a series of them, which looks like

20 it's some of the ones we have here, but not all the ones

21 that were attached to Deposition Exhibit No. 10. Would

22 that be correct?

23 A. I would agree to that.

24 Q. Then below that, we have the mortgage,




102

1 correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Do you need a copy of that? Those are all the

4 documents that were attached to the Answers, Request for

5 Production. We basically described what they were?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Basically the loan, the note, the pay history

8 and these couple -- and all the invoice ones that you

9 produced today invoice details, correct?

10 MR. IARIA: I'm sorry, can you reclarify

11 that? I lost you.

12 BY MR. BACH:

13 Q. Attached to the Answers to the Request For

14 Production is the loan -- is the note, the mortgage, the

15 assignments, the allonges that we discussed already,

16 okay? Then also is the pay history that we discussed,

17 the payment codes that don't apply to what is described

18 which you have now supplemented with Deposition Exhibit

19 No. 12 and 12. And then besides that are some of the

20 invoice details, but not all. That's what's attached to

21 here, correct?

22 A. What I see attached to here is the payment

23 history where the loan was at DMI, a copy of the note

24 with the allonges, Assignment of -- one Assignment of




103

1 Mortgage. The only one that's on there is from LNV to

2 Beal Bank U.S.A., some of the invoices, not necessarily

3 would be all of them that was presented in Exhibit 10,

4 and a copy of the mortgage.

5 Q. I think we said a lot of the same things, but

6 maybe said it a different way.

7 A. There is a couple things left out.

8 Q. But that's the basic idea of what I was trying

9 to get across. Okay. So now, if you would come back

10 with me and let us go through some of my questions, if

11 we go to the Answers to the Request for Document

12 Request, which is about Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, it looks

13 like 6, okay? Now, No. 3 was objected to, but you have

14 now given me that spread sheet, so that's what you're

15 sufficing for that, correct? No. 3? It was unduly

16 burdensome. Now you have produced that, correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I am going through charges and debits. Exact

19 things I was looking for. That's fine. No. 4 has an

20 XLS Form Spread Sheet. That's kind of what Exhibit 11

21 and 12 are, deposition exhibits. If you go to No. 4,

22 which is right there, which I asked for a spread sheet.

23 A. That's what that is, yes.

24 Q. I just want to make sure, you say "Collection




104

1 notes are available as part of the LPS." Collection

2 notes, can those be printed out easily?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't bring those

5 with you today?

6 A. I wasn't aware that you didn't have them

7 already.

8 Q. I don't. I would like them. But they aren't

9 hard to print out at all, correct?

10 A. No.

11 Q. So the fact that it says that that request is

12 unduly burdensome in time and scope --

13 MR. IARIA: Objection. I mean, you're trying

14 to have him speak to legal objections that are made as a

15 part of it, be it relevancy -- but for the sake of this

16 case, if you want to go through collection notes as

17 well, I would have to review them with my client and see

18 if there is any material that can't be produced as part

19 of it.

20 MR. BACH: But the point you made in this

21 objection was it was too difficult to produce, and

22 you're telling me now that it's not too burdensome to

23 produce. All you have to do is print it out.

24 MR. IARIA: I don't know what's on these, so




105

1 we would have to review the notes. So I may have a

2 separate objection based on that.

3 MR. BACH: That's what it says right here. It

4 doesn't say anything about the fact it is privileged or

5 any other information. It says it was unduly burdensome

6 to print it out.

7 MR. IARIA: It sure does.

8 BY MR. BACH:

9 Q. Now, the insurance that was before, is that

10 regular?

11 MR. IARIA: Objection. Can you

12 specify, "before?"

13 BY MR. BACH:

14 Q. On the 11th and 12th, it showed, I think, that

15 you were - at least recently when I was going through

16 it, that there were some escrow payments for insurance.

17 Is that or regular insurance?

18 A. Regular insurance.

19 MS. BACH: Clarification question. If I am

20 looking at the late fees and other charges on what's

21 labeled as Exhibit 11, and I compare it to what was

22 Group Exhibit 10, I will be able to get the

23 clarification what all of those are? So the column

24 that's labeled Balance of Late Fees or Other Charges,




106

1 not the balance, the actual late fee and charge

2 assessments?

3 A. Yes. You can compare that to what was

4 actually on Exhibit 10, and that should be the invoices

5 that match those to these charges.

6 MS. BACH: I will not ask anything about those

7 and look at the two comparisons.

8 BY MR. BACH:

9 Q. Is there something that if someone looks at

10 the computer system, it tells them where the note is, in

11 terms of custody of the note?

12 A. No, not on the system.

13 Q. Okay. So when you went to go prepare for

14 today, how did you know where the note was or were you

15 told or?

16 A. Well, I reviewed the note jacket and I saw all

17 the sheets that showed that it was sent to counsel, and

18 then I verified with counsel to make sure they actually

19 had it in their possession.

20 Q. You checked the note jacket, which is really

21 the answer my question?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But the note jacket is really what the answer

24 to the question -- That's how you keep track of the




107

1 custody of that, because the note jacket stays no matter

2 if the note leaves the building?


4 Q. Now, if you sell a loan or the loan gets paid

5 off, what happens to the note jacket?

6 MR. IARIA: Objection to relevance to this

7 case. Try and keep this moving.

8 THE WITNESS: The note, if it's sold, the note

9 jacket would go to the original note, to the new owners

10 and we would have a copy that we would archive. If it

11 was paid in full, we would stamp the note, "Paid in

12 full," make a copy of it, and send the original note

13 back to the borrower.

14 Q. Is Allison Martin the only one who is

15 authorized to sign allonges and assignments?

16 MR. IARIA: Objection to relevance to this

17 case. Not even a question that would lead to

18 permissible evidence in this matter.

19 THE WITNESS: I am unaware.

20 BY MR. BACH:

21 Q. You would agree that the mortgage -- that the

22 note is not blank. It is endorsed to a specific party,

23 correct?

24 A. Correct.




108

1 Q. Is that normally how the Beal Companies hold

2 notes or are some blank?


4 THE WITNESS: We would normally have it

5 assigned to a specific entity. However, I have seen

6 some in the past that have been endorsed in blank.

7 MR. BACH: Let's take a break for about five

8 minutes. I may be done pretty quickly.

9 MR. IARIA: Okay. Off the record.

10 (Off the record.)

11 EXAMINATION

12 BY MS. BACH:

13 Q. Back on the record. I have Exhibit 4 and

14 Exhibit 9 in my possession. I am going to hand them to

15 you so you can see so we don't have to go digging.

16 If you look at the second page of Exhibit

17 4 and the second page of Exhibit 9, those are the two

18 pages that are signed by Allison --

19 A. Martin?

20 Q. Allison Martin, correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. If you look at these signature pages, just a

23 really quick question. There is a mark here. There is

24 a mark there. There is a mark there. I pointed right




109

1 next to the LNV Corporation, next to like the signature

2 block on Exhibit 9, and then Exhibit 4, just next to the

3 LNV Corporation. Do you know what those are?

4 A. No.

5 MR. BACH: Is that on the original, too?

6 MS. BACH: It's on the originals, too.

7 Q. Have you ever seen those types of marks

8 before?

9 A. No.

10 Q. There is a couple people that I believe work

11 with you. I just want to know what their positions

12 are? Do you know who Burton Brillhart is?

13 A. Explain.

14 Q. What was his position while he worked there?


16 case.

17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall.

18 Q. Is there a Tom Montgomery that works with

19 you?


21 THE WITNESS: No.

22 BY MS. BACH:

23 Q. Tim Taylor?

24 MR. IARIA: Objection, foundation, relevance.




110

1 If we could explain even where these names are coming

2 from?

3 MS. BACH: From their website and the links on

4 people. These are people my clients talked to and asked

5 about the specific account.

6 A. Tim Taylor is, I think, CFO.

7 BY MS. BACH:

8 Q. For which corporation?

9 A. For Beal.

10 Q. For Beal in general?

11 A. Yeah.

12 MS. IARIA: I'm sorry, Counsel. You said your

13 client has talked to those individuals?

14 MS. BACH: Talked to them or have received

15 correspondence from them -- I should clarify what I

16 said -- with their names on them.

17 Q. Randy Leverette?


19 THE WITNESS: He is an ex-employee, used to be

20 VP of loss mitigation.

21 BY MS. BACH:

22 Q. Of which corporation?

23 A. MGC.

24 Q. MGC. And when did he leave?




111


2 THE WITNESS: I don't recall when he was

3 actually -- He was let go prior to, I think, or he left

4 on his own prior to 2010.

5 Q. Is there an Erica Thomas at MGC?

6 A. Say that again.

7 Q. Erica Thomas?

8 A. No.


10 BY MS. BACH:

11 Q. Was there ever an Erica Thomas that worked

12 with you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. When did she leave?


16 THE WITNESS: Sometime within the last two

17 years.

18 MR. IARIA: Counsel, if we could get this to

19 the actual -- anything to do with this case at all?

20 MS. BACH: Every one of these people have

21 something to do with this case.

22 MR. IARIA: With Beal Bank.

23 MS. BACH: These are MGC employees who have

24 communications with them.




112

1 MR. IARIA: Also, we're talking about a

2 bankruptcy filing, amounts due and owing and maybe

3 standing issues. You're just going through and reading

4 a list of names of employees.

5 MR. BACH: There is no harm in just asking if

6 they are employees.

7 MR. IARIA: I am making my objection for the

8 record.

9 BY MS. BACH:

10 Q. Rob Ackerman?


12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 MS. BACH: If you want to stipulate you're

14 going to object to all of these names.

15 MR. IARIA: Sure. We can do that. If there

16 is a series of 30 postcards with names on them, then I

17 will make a blanket objection to the specific names.

18 MR. BACH: That's fine.

19 BY MS. BACH:

20 Q. Does Rob Ackerman work with you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What is his title?

23 A. I believe his title is chief litigation, but

24 he is also SVP. He is on the CLMG side.




113

1 Q. Do you know -- Strike that. Bill Sowerman?

2 (phonetic).

3 A. That's Bill Sowerman, yes. He was the -- is

4 SVP over CLMG. He is no longer with the company.

5 Q. Do you know when he left?

6 A. Beginning of this year.

7 Q. Monthly I can you recall?

8 A. She is also an ex-employee, used to be SVP for

9 Beal. She is no longer with the company. She left a few

10 years ago.

11 Q. James Irwin?

12 A. James Irwin is the president of CMG and he is

13 still there.

14 Q. Jacob Cherner? (phonetic).

15 A. Jacob Cherner is the president of the

16 company. He is over all of the entities and he is still

17 there.

18 Q. When you say, "the company," you mean Beal?

19 A. Beal, yeah.

20 Q. Steven Costas?

21 A. No. He used to be chief litigation. He is no

22 longer with the company. He has been gone for at least

23 a year.

24 Q. And Michael Brown?




114

1 A. Michael Brown was SVP of our accounting and he

2 has been gone within the last year as well.

3 Q. I only have one more name for you. Connie

4 Johnson?

5 A. Connie Johnson was over on the CLMG side. She

6 was a portfolio manager and she is no longer with the

7 company as of this year.

8 Q. Way earlier today you mentioned there is a

9 Scott Burns. I just want to clarify. He is the

10 bankruptcy manager from DMI?

11 A. I believe Scott is over bankruptcy. I believe

12 he is foreclosure. If not, I can supply who was under

13 bankruptcy with DMI.

14 Q. Does MGC have many bank accounts?

15 MR. IARIA: Objection, vague.

16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What?

17 BY MS. BACH:

18 Q. Does MGC have many -- Strike that. Does all

19 payments to MGC go to the same account?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Are there multiple addresses and locations for

22 MGC?

23 A. There are.

24 Q. Are there different addresses for payments for




115

1 MGC and LNV than there are offices?

2 A. Let me get some clarification. There is going

3 to be different -- e-mail address or the address I gave

4 you for where I am located out of is the corproate

5 office, the 7195 Dallas Parkway. There is some that

6 are -- where you send correspondence and payments to is

7 an Illinois address. That's because it's going to DMI

8 who is our subservicer. There is also different

9 addresses for correspondence and payments for Cinlar,

10 which is in New Jersey. So that's the difference

11 between the different addresses and such. The loan is

12 being subserviced by DMI. The payments are to be

13 directed to that address here in Illinois.

14 Q. Do you know how many addresses DMI may have

15 for payments?

16 A. For us, one.

17 Q. Do those addresses for payments change or has

18 it been stagnant since the inception of this loan?

19 A. I don't recall.

20 Q. Do you know what the Illinois address is?

21 A. It's on one of the letters, I believe.

22 MR. IARIA: Lake Zurich address.

23 THE WITNESS: One Corporate Drive, 3360 Lake

24 Zurich, Illinois.




116

1 Q. To the best of your knowledge, that's the only

2 payment address they had?

3 MR. IARIA: Can you specify a time line?

4 MS. BACH: From the inception of this loan.

5 A. Well, this loan has only been subserviced by

6 DMI since April 2010. This is the customer service

7 department's address for correspondence. The overnight

8 payments are also sent to One Corporate Drive, Lake

9 Zurich, is the only one I am aware of.

10 Q. Do you have any procedures in place to verify

11 the notes and mortgages to make sure they are not

12 fraudulent?

13 MR. IARIA: Objection, the question

14 presupposes a whole slue of potentially -- well, I don't

15 know what you're getting at in this question. If you

16 could -- just procedures on whether or not things are

17 fraudulent is the question?

18 MS. BACH: I will strike the question. Let me

19 rephrase it.

20 Q. Are there procedures in place, when a new loan

21 is acquired, to verify that the documents are true and

22 correct?

23 A. Is there a procedure in place? I don't know.

24 Q. To your knowledge, has Beal or any of its




117

1 subsidiaries been sued?

2 MR. IARIA: Sued at all?

3 MS. BACH: I am finishing the sentence. I am

4 figuring out the right way of phrasing it. To your

5 knowledge, has Beal Companies or any other entities been

6 sued for fraudulent notes or mortgages?


8 THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of.

9 BY MS. BACH:

10 Q. Have they been sued from any of the parties --

11 Strike that. Has Beal Companies or its subsidiaries to

12 your knowledge been sued by the parties they purchased

13 their debts from?


15 case.

16 THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of.

17 MS. BACH: We're going to strike that

18 question. I will come up with a better way of phrasing

19 it.

20 Q. Are you aware of a complaint that was filed in

21 accordance with this mortgage in July of 2008 with the

22 Attorney General's Office?

23 MR. IARIA: Objection, relevance. There is a

24 bankruptcy proceeding.




118

1 THE WITNESS: I am not aware.

2 BY MS. BACH:

3 Q. Are you aware that at one point this loan was

4 supposed to go from GMAC to Aurora Loan?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you know the EIN numbers for the various

7 corporations under Beal Bank?

8 A. No.

9 Q. How many --

10 MR. IARIA: Counsel, I don't want to keep

11 going with the blanket objection. If you would kindly

12 get this back on track to reality here.

13 BY MS. BACH:

14 Q. How many affidavits do you sign?


16 case.

17 MS. BACH: Let me finish the question.

18 Q. How many affidavits do you sign in accordance

19 with either foreclosure proceedings or proof of claims?

20 MR. IARIA: Do you have a time line, Counsel?

21 Ever?

22 BY MS. BACH:

23 Q. I am just thinking about it for since 2012.

24 In a typical month. I will make it easier. A typical




119

1 month.

2 MR. IARIA: Objection. It has no bearing at

3 all to this case and we're almost at the end of this. I

4 don't want to threaten to walk out, but we've got to get

5 this back on track to relevant information pertaining to

6 this bankruptcy proceeding.

7 THE WITNESS: On average, one a month.

8 BY MS. BACH:

9 Q. When you -- Do you make the determination

10 yourself whether there is going to be mortgage insurance

11 on a claim?

12 A. I do not.

13 Q. Do you have a copy of the servicing

14 agreement?

15 MR. IARIA: Could you specify?

16 BY MS. BACH:

17 Q. Between LNV and GMAC?

18 A. LNV and GMAC?

19 Q. MGC.

20 A. There is one that is out there. I don't

21 currently have one with me.

22 Q. Would you be able to get a copy of that?


24 case.




120

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 BY MS. BACH:

3 Q. Do you use Pfizer?

4 MR. IARIA: Objection. For the record, the

5 debtor's client or the actual debtor is asking the

6 questions at the deposition now, just for the record.

7 THE WITNESS: We used to.

8 BY MS. BACH:

9 Q. Do you remember when the last time you used

10 them was?

11 A. It would have been prior to the service

12 transfer to DMI, which would have been around April

13 2010.

14 Q. Is GMAC themselves licensed in Illinois?

15 A. GMAC?

16 Q. I am getting my letters mixed.

17 A. MGC, and I don't know.

18 Q. Is DMI?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. I only have a couple more questions left. One

21 of the names that I missed earlier is did you work with

22 a Jeffrey Shearhart?

23 A. CLNG litigation.

24 Q. Charles King?




121

1 A. Charles King is a DMI employee.

2 Q. Do you know which department he is in?

3 A. I believe they are their litigation

4 department.

5 MR. IARIA: For the record, the debtor is now

6 talking on the record and asking additional questions.

7 MR. BACH: She is talking to counsel. She is

8 allowed and she should be.

9 MR. IARIA: It seems like she is running the

10 deposition at this point. Could I engage in brief

11 redirect?

12 MS. BACH: I have one final question.

13 Q. Have you ever been convicted of a crime?

14 MR. IARIA: Objection. I think you should

15 focus it to a felony for the purposes of testimony, but

16 that's --

17 THE WITNESS: I have had a DWI back in 1999,

18 which I served two years on probation, which I completed

19 the probation. That's it.

20 MS. BACH: I have nothing further of this

21 witness.

22 MR. IARIA: Counsel, are you all set? Some

23 brief, brief redirect.

24




122

1 EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. IARIA:

3 Q. Would a specific person be assigned to one

4 specific case at DMI, to the best of your knowledge, or

5 would a group of individuals potentially work on one

6 case?

7 A. I believe it would be a group of individuals.

8 Q. Previously you testified as to the custodian

9 division, and there was a chart outlining the name.

10 Does MGC, Beal, LNV, do they all have equal access to

11 the custodian recordkeeping and notes?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. At the time the Proof of Claim was filed, how

14 did the original note exist and what were the specific

15 endorsements on that?

16 A. The original note was with counsel back in

17 June of 2011. What the note was at the time, the owner

18 was LNV Corporation.

19 Q. In regards to Exhibit 4, the green cover sheet

20 that was previously entered into the record, that

21 document had a specific date on it. Does that mean that

22 the allonge was created on that date or would it have

23 been around that date?

24 A. It could have been either/or.




123

1 Q. One of the later questions -- I am going to

2 briefly touch on this -- you showed little marks on the

3 allonges and you said you have never seen them before.

4 Could it be have you ever even looked for those kinds of

5 marks before?

6 A. No.

7 Q. LNV and Beal Bank, do they share the same

8 address?

9 A. They share the same location, LNV though is

10 shown as being 7195 Dallas Parkway. 6000 Legacy Drive

11 is actually the same physical address.

12 Q. If ownership was transferred from LNV to Beal,

13 and say it wasn't an active foreclosure or bankruptcy,

14 would the note stay in the same custodian spot? Would

15 it move at all?

16 A. It would not move.

17 Q. One last issue. Counsel briefly touched on

18 payments information for DMI. Just to clarify, we

19 pointed out a Lake Zurich address. Could there be a

20 P.O. Box address for payments accepted, do you know?

21 A. I don't recall.

22 MR. IARIA: And that's all I have for

23 redirect.

24 MR. BACH: Nothing.




124

1 MR. IARIA: I am going to reserve for the

2 transcript.

3 * * * * FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT * * * *

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24




125

1 I, WENDY M. STRICKLER, a CertifiedShorthand Reporter of the State of Illinois, CSR License

2 No. 084-003257, do hereby certify:3 That previous to the commencement of the

examination of the aforesaid witness, the witness was4 duly sworn by me to testify the whole truth concerning

the matters herein;5

That the foregoing deposition transcript6 was stenographically reported by me and was thereafter

reduced to typewriting under my personal direction and7 constitutes a true and accurate record of the testimony

given and the proceedings had at the aforesaid8 deposition;9 That the said deposition was taken before

me at the time and place specified;10

That I am not a relative or employee or11 attorney or counsel for any of the parties herein, nor a

relative or employee of such attorney or counsel for any12 of the parties hereto, nor am I interested directly or

indirectly in the outcome of this action.13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my

hand at Chicago, Illinois this 5TH day of August, 2014.1415

_____________________________________16 WENDY M. STRICKLER, CSR

CSR License No. 084-0032571718192021222324




126

1 ERRATA SHEET2 I, BRET MALONEY, have read the foregoing

transcript of my deposition taken on July 11, 2014 and,3 except for any corrections noted below, it is a true and

correct transcript of my deposition given on the date4 aforesaid.5 CORRECTIONS BASED ON ERRORS IN6 PAGE LINE REPORTING OR TRANSCRIPTION

____ ____ _________________________7

____ ____ _________________________8

____ ____ _________________________9

____ ____ _________________________10

____ ____ _________________________11

____ ____ _________________________12

____ ____ _________________________13

____ ____ _________________________14

____ ____ _________________________15

____ ____ _________________________16

____ ____ _________________________17

____________________18 BRET MALONEY19 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

COUNTY OF DUPAGE )20

subscribed and sworn to before me21 this_____day of_____________,2014.222324






127

Aa.m 1:8 4:5A2 100:2A2155 100:1100:3

able 6:1531:1932:234:1940:475:1876:1,1085:14105:22119:22

absolutely91:3

Acceptance10:10,1710:20

accepted123:20

accepts12:3

access 15:422:11,2022:24122:10

accessed22:13

accessible24:1825:14

account22:17,1793:1995:20,2396:1,2,1497:6110:5114:19

accounting21:2474:15114:1

accounts

114:14accurate37:3125:7

Ackerman112:10,20

acquire81:9

acquired48:1349:3116:21

acquisit...62:19

action 66:4125:12

active123:13

actual 7:824:838:1341:1859:2082:3 85:585:11,1285:1587:1594:4106:1111:19120:5

add 53:8added 39:1841:19,20

additional25:1726:1935:13,14101:10121:6

address 4:34:22 13:631:6115:3,3,7115:13,20115:22

116:2,7123:8,11123:19,20

addresses114:21,24115:9,11115:14,17

adjustable98:10

Administ...13:24

advertised84:17

Advertis...84:18

advising69:14

affidavits118:14,18

affiliated4:2 8:1510:12,15

aforesaid125:3,7126:4

ago 5:196:7 16:2113:10

agree 40:846:2470:1101:23107:21

agreed 16:2agreement11:11,1411:14,1912:6,1619:9,9,2120:2,2033:348:2159:2119:14

agreements12:11

19:14ahead 27:1169:20

allison47:16,1855:9,1056:8,1268:7,1178:8107:14108:18,20

allonge33:2335:1438:1839:540:20,2241:1,5,1741:2447:5,2147:2353:2055:1,958:1361:1078:14122:22

allonges39:3,1742:5 43:750:1358:2178:17,20101:10102:15,24107:15123:3

allowed121:8

allows 6:116:13

ambiguous8:7 18:4

amount65:11,1265:13,15

65:22,2367:20,2084:1395:11,1595:2496:9,11

amounts64:2365:170:20112:2

analyst29:22,2230:4

and/or24:12

angle 51:1251:15

Anselmo 2:234:736:2464:22

answer 6:1657:1073:3,6,9106:21,23

answers93:11102:4,13103:11

anticipa...66:17

anybody12:1029:8,1629:1854:22

apologize47:2153:663:2290:11

appear 86:987:15

appeared1:22 2:5

appears47:2454:5 80:983:2186:7,1086:2287:1489:11

applicat...21:4

applied94:1495:9 96:296:2197:1598:14

applies97:7

apply102:17

appreciate16:1328:1

Approxim...56:2

April 33:133:12,1533:16116:6120:12

archive107:10

areas 21:621:9

arrangem...16:21

arrearages65:22

arrears67:2168:3 95:3

arrive16:18

asked 5:2016:1 77:1103:22




128

110:4asking52:1853:5 58:359:1 65:965:1068:2269:2 72:698:5112:5120:5121:6

assess 26:326:10,11

assessed65:2468:4 85:185:393:19

assessments106:2

asset 48:2158:1559:2

assets19:22

assigned32:1,1034:378:11,22108:5122:3

assignment36:7,8,958:2161:2273:1574:1875:3,8,1476:2277:8,1077:1579:11101:15,16102:24,24

assignments

7:2 50:1373:1178:16,1980:10102:15107:15

assigns77:17

assist 29:9assistants93:7

associated31:383:22

assume 15:828:8 43:554:2279:194:1395:6

attach34:14

attached38:16,1938:2139:640:2242:8 47:454:17,1965:2 70:883:1585:9,10100:23101:21102:4,13102:20,22

attachment70:22

attachments63:11

attend 5:20attorney32:436:2053:3117:22

125:11,11attorney...55:13,1555:20

attorneys18:12

August14:1115:10,1215:1396:22125:13

Aurora118:4

Austin13:24

authorized107:15

authorizes55:19

automati...26:1 92:5

available31:20104:1

average119:7

aware 5:2410:1811:3,729:460:1669:9 73:5104:6116:9117:8,16117:20118:1,3

BB 3:7 37:17B-R-E-T4:21

B-U-R-R-I-S64:18

Bach 1:19

1:20 3:43:4 4:84:17 5:118:9 12:214:1717:2218:7 20:720:2322:1427:2 30:930:1334:8,1434:18,2135:5,8,1235:2236:12,1737:7,1038:540:1442:1343:446:1347:1648:2449:1652:9,1753:2,9,1456:1,7,1157:10,1957:2359:1061:8 63:563:1465:6,966:1,2467:5,7,1368:10,1569:2471:2072:2373:1874:11,1474:2475:1777:2179:5,17

79:2081:1482:2383:1687:2488:3,1390:10,1390:1991:3,1198:2,6,24102:12104:20105:3,8105:13,19106:6,8107:20108:7,12109:5,6109:22110:3,7110:14,21111:10,20111:23112:5,9112:13,18112:19114:17116:4,18117:3,9117:17118:2,13118:17,22119:8,16120:2,8121:7,12121:20123:24

Bachelor13:23

Bachelor's14:3

back 14:1314:2115:2423:226:13

27:2434:1936:1739:19,2143:18,2150:1651:1056:1758:859:11,1163:1369:2 72:186:987:10,2388:6 99:9103:9107:13108:13118:12119:5121:17122:16

background62:11

balance98:8,14105:24106:1

bank 8:3,38:7,10,118:13 9:39:7,911:2,1011:1212:1817:1419:2220:1035:1536:840:2158:16,1859:6 60:360:662:1370:4




129

72:2273:1375:1081:5,6,9103:2111:22114:14118:7123:7

banking15:1,5

bankrupt...94:8

bankruptcy1:1,104:9 5:67:5,521:7 27:829:2130:12,1431:1632:8,1532:18,2037:1645:1663:17,2364:1566:1967:1688:2,494:19112:2114:10,11114:13117:24119:6123:13

bar 50:952:4,4,2253:8,1780:5

based 26:866:4 70:179:1,697:2398:11

105:2126:5

basic 26:1627:2428:2103:8

basically21:10,1828:1665:1492:22102:5,7

basis 21:129:686:1894:1497:16

Beal 8:1,28:2,10,138:16 9:39:4,5,7,911:2,1011:1212:1813:8 14:814:18,2415:14,1817:1,1420:1028:2429:832:2235:1436:840:2041:12,1442:1846:647:1453:2354:1256:1758:4,5,1658:1859:6 60:360:6,23

70:472:2173:1375:977:12103:2108:1110:9,10111:22113:9,18113:19116:24117:5,11118:7122:10123:7,12

bear 96:15bearing75:14119:2

Beginning113:6

behalf 1:222:5 10:2412:4 66:969:12,17

believe9:13 13:851:1653:2055:1864:18109:10112:23114:11,11115:21121:3122:7

best 84:23116:1122:4

better 93:2117:18

beyond 14:2101:7

big 55:8

bill 24:1680:1489:16113:1,3

billed 85:685:789:12,23

bit 18:2326:1562:384:12

blank107:22108:2,6

blanket112:17118:11

block 109:2blunt 22:16borrower94:19107:13

bottom84:1387:20100:14,15

bought19:2233:12

Boulevard1:14,204:5

Box 123:20boxes 49:24break 74:1074:1279:18108:7

breakdown27:1682:1284:24

Bret 1:73:3 4:64:10,134:19

126:2,18brief121:10,23121:23

briefly123:2,17

Brillhart109:12

bring 75:1875:2076:185:1487:23104:4

bringing44:22

broken86:1193:24

Brook 1:141:21

brought27:6,1136:20,2037:13,1363:1173:1777:882:1383:1

Brown 29:17113:24114:1

Build 68:8building13:10,1713:1957:13107:2

bunch 82:12burdensome103:16104:12,22105:5

Burns 114:9Burris

64:18Burris'64:21

Burton109:12

business4:22 9:2013:2360:22

buyer 49:21

CC-E-N-L-A-R20:17

C.S.R 1:12calculate65:15

call 14:940:142:1360:2463:1982:16,1690:1

called 1:94:14 8:1045:776:2080:1383:3

calls 46:1155:1665:4,1965:2067:477:19

card 28:4care 21:1021:14,1821:2428:17,1864:1070:18

Carol 1:3carried8:22




130

case 5:237:1912:1816:1120:630:10,1131:1137:1639:1848:2349:15,2166:386:1087:23,2488:2,4104:16107:7,17109:16111:19,21117:15118:16119:3,24122:4,6

Cassling4:12

cataloged25:1143:1249:8,2450:11

categories39:4

category93:10

CCO 28:23Cenlar19:12,1320:4,1120:17

certain11:1 20:460:19

certific...73:18

certified35:18

73:16,2475:1125:1

certify77:1125:2

CFO 110:6chain 28:949:1951:3

change15:16,1815:2062:2372:19,2072:20115:17

changed50:2060:269:10

Chapter 1:545:1593:2394:9,1694:19

charge 26:162:1464:1385:18106:1

charges27:17,1983:1585:398:18,1998:20103:18105:20,24106:5

charging88:4

Charles120:24121:1

chart 33:9

50:16122:9

charts26:20

check 12:512:1724:325:1187:12

checked106:20

checks24:12

Cherner113:14,15

Chicago30:18125:13

chief112:23113:21

choose24:23

Chris 2:26:2 29:1329:2183:5 93:9

CHRISTOPHER1:4

Cinlar115:9

Civil 1:106:8

claim 37:1637:1738:13,1938:2444:452:1054:18,1962:2463:8,2365:2366:9,1867:3,9,1067:23

68:6,1468:16,1768:1769:12,1669:1770:2,5,770:2271:6,8,1672:2,2184:1,2,490:24119:11122:13

claimant69:372:14

claims 25:564:6118:19

clarific...105:19,23115:2

clarify18:6 19:666:23110:15114:9123:18

clear 7:1160:292:16

clearer54:4,7

client 65:888:11104:17110:13120:5

clients110:4

CLMG 9:2410:2,3,413:3,533:1135:2350:18,21

58:1,2,476:14,19112:24113:4114:5

CLNG 120:23close 57:7closing58:7

CMG 76:18113:12

coated27:17

code 52:4,452:2253:8,1780:5

coded 50:9codes 100:5100:5,10100:24101:1102:17

coding 85:389:199:15

collateral36:5 41:741:18,2342:1,443:6,1045:2250:6,2350:2451:679:2281:2182:6

collection103:24104:1,16

color 27:1783:2285:3,5

colored83:22

column93:13,1595:6105:23

columns93:15

come 14:2116:1626:1339:2150:159:1165:1466:11,1266:1481:2097:12103:9117:18

comes 97:3coming110:1

command28:9

commence...125:3

commercial10:3 13:215:2217:463:19

commissi...1:13

communic...65:7

communic...111:24

companies8:1510:1612:4,1912:2214:8,2417:1 20:229:932:22




131

41:1454:13108:1117:5,11

company 9:610:1215:1733:8,944:1845:7,1145:1246:5,648:253:19,2397:9113:4,9113:16,18113:22114:7

compare38:8105:21106:3

comparisons106:7

complaint117:20

completed121:18

compliance28:2231:3

computer17:3,1217:13,1718:2,8,1126:460:19106:10

concerned7:10

concerning125:4

conclude21:20

conclusion

55:1772:17

condesce...32:7

condolences16:12

confine17:10

confirm60:9

confused100:17

Connect80:13

Connie114:3,5

constitutes125:7

consumer17:6

contact5:22 29:5

contained36:23,23

Contd 2:1continua...90:15

continue86:24,2490:12

continuing16:10

contract11:5,8

contractual94:13,14

control29:2133:6 50:255:12,1478:18

convicted121:13

copies 22:423:3 27:527:6,16

35:336:1340:1 42:450:673:1575:1180:983:22

copy 5:1423:1124:3,1633:2234:15,2135:1837:14,1537:1538:1239:2 40:540:1641:17,2042:1743:8 44:351:8 52:552:861:1463:7,1066:673:15,1675:2,6,1975:2077:1,280:10,1082:1099:2102:3,23103:4107:10,12119:13,22

copying35:11

corner13:18

Corp 8:1,29:24 10:210:3,450:18

corporate8:16,2410:4,13115:23116:8

corporation7:13,188:17 9:910:11,1710:2114:1815:14,1935:2336:938:16,2339:2045:1048:749:2251:13,2354:1155:958:1860:2369:3,1369:1773:12,1375:4,977:6,16101:17109:1,3110:8,22122:18

corporat...118:7

corproate115:4

correct8:18 9:1114:3,415:5,9,2216:3,6,2217:15,1617:2418:1,9,2119:15,17

19:18,2319:2420:1321:1222:1,224:15,1924:2427:2028:5,6,1030:2,2230:2331:7,8,1133:1834:10,1135:7,1937:838:2040:23,2441:2342:9 44:744:9,1044:12,1444:18,1944:2345:8,1745:1846:6,7,1046:1247:11,1848:7,8,2149:550:1851:1552:2353:1254:1,5,654:8,1054:20,2154:23,2459:2362:264:11,2364:2466:13,1967:1669:4,5

70:13,1470:21,2370:2471:1,473:11,1274:2,475:12,2376:15,1677:2,3,577:6,1177:1378:8,979:23,2480:4,2082:7,1482:1583:1,889:1891:15,1692:9,1992:20,2294:1595:12,1796:11,12100:22101:1,3,9101:11,15101:22102:1,2,6102:9,21103:15,16104:9107:3,23107:24108:20,21116:22126:3

correction56:1681:18

corrections126:3,5

correctly30:15

correspo...7:4 22:9




132

110:15115:6,9116:7

correspo...27:1885:2

corresponds85:4

cost 84:17Costas113:20

costs 65:2367:2283:1884:3,1884:24

counsel1:18 2:15:14 31:365:1766:3,568:5 69:969:12,1575:1197:17106:17,18110:12111:18118:10,20121:7,22122:16123:17125:11,11

county 4:24:3 35:1877:1126:19

couple 5:196:7 16:227:2463:1870:10102:8103:7109:10120:20

course25:2234:2050:8

court 1:11:11 4:216:1140:4,666:1971:1283:18

cover 96:18122:19

created34:12122:22

creditors63:18

crime121:13

critical45:16

CSR 125:1125:16,16

curb 87:12curiosity14:20

current94:2396:10100:20

currently119:21

custodian10:5 34:650:19,2176:17122:8,11123:14

custody49:1951:1,1,4106:11107:1

customer116:6

cut 26:18

DD 3:1d/b/a 45:245:10

daily 21:22Dallas 4:2313:7,1213:16,18115:5123:10

damage86:1687:11,11

damaged87:7

dark 83:8,9darker84:16

data 89:1date 4:45:10 34:237:7 38:440:1341:1,5,941:1542:1943:3,947:10,1347:22,2248:1449:4,6,650:1058:9,1058:1960:5,1961:762:2263:467:1568:2370:2,2174:8,2379:2,3,779:8

81:15,1581:1782:2286:8 90:690:1691:1094:3,9,1194:1395:6122:21,22122:23126:3

dated 41:241:360:1279:1380:1599:17100:3

David 68:768:11

day 16:1916:2226:9 56:459:2060:17125:13126:21

day-to-day19:1 64:5

days 26:372:1

deal 56:15dealing32:993:22

debits103:18

debtor45:1563:17120:5121:5

debtor's120:5

debtors 1:5

1:22 32:493:13

debts117:13

December14:1015:6,1456:1759:18,1959:22,2460:2,561:2462:7,869:872:10,1173:1

decided60:1762:12

decision60:2262:2172:10

Deeds 76:24default 7:428:1529:2230:4 32:987:2,2,3

defaults92:9

Defendant2:5

define 8:68:7

definition92:16

degree 14:3delinque...25:18

delinquent25:23

Dep 37:2037:2038:7 40:1

department

31:15,1632:8 33:641:13,1342:1850:264:16,2178:18121:2,4

departme...116:7

Depends78:15

deponent36:19,20124:3

deponent's4:6

deposit97:6

deposited97:4

deposition1:6 3:8,93:9,10,103:11,113:12,123:13,133:14 4:105:5,7,135:15,205:22 6:116:24 7:1015:2427:129:1032:1734:1635:137:1938:1 40:940:10,1641:2142:7,1342:16,2243:1,8,2243:24




133

47:551:1052:5,753:1054:8,1655:2 58:861:1,4,2163:1,769:770:1374:2,5,2075:2,6,877:5,7,1177:1478:6 79:682:1983:4,2090:2,391:7,13101:21102:18103:21120:6121:10125:5,8,9126:2,3

depositions1:11

describe86:12

described102:5,17

description55:24100:9

descript...99:11

designated6:12

Desktop18:1483:2485:1092:4101:18

detail

70:2085:11

detailed37:5

details102:9,20

determin...119:9

determine31:17

determining93:21

develop50:6

Diehl 2:3difference13:1338:1252:2,1768:2279:14115:10

different8:20,218:23 10:811:6 12:113:3,4,1017:5 19:519:7,1019:11,1621:6,8,923:327:1932:1936:1338:939:1644:1750:5,1452:8 70:672:2477:1778:2 85:286:787:2190:14

91:592:12103:6114:24115:3,8115:11

differen...94:22

difficult23:1737:1592:18104:21

digging108:15

directed115:13

direction66:8125:6

directly98:12125:12

director6:12

disbursed24:10

disclosing6:14

Discovery99:1

discussed20:1369:6102:15,16

discussing24:7 71:2

discussion26:1453:3

dismissed27:994:12

distinction69:2287:4

distribute73:14,22

DISTRICT1:1

Ditech44:23,2445:3

Ditech.com45:2,11

divide94:17

division1:2 13:2122:9

DMI 64:4,769:9,1272:1889:6,7102:23114:10,13115:7,12115:14116:6120:12,18121:1122:4123:18

DMIs 89:2dobin 18:20dock 43:14docs 7:536:7

document5:16,216:4,622:9,2023:8,9,1323:1624:1433:6 34:636:2437:11,1839:1,440:8 41:641:20,2243:6 50:2

50:3,1050:2251:2253:2055:11,1460:1363:866:1868:2376:1278:1881:1985:9 86:688:1993:499:14103:11122:21

document...50:23

documented21:5 33:548:1549:760:2178:1488:2297:13,14

documents7:12 10:510:6 22:423:3,1526:1927:1034:2235:636:2143:1447:2049:2150:10,2052:2253:1855:2157:1458:4,6

60:8,9,1460:1862:9 68:168:476:1380:2081:2082:8,1382:2485:9 86:590:1491:5,1793:597:18102:4116:21

doing 40:463:1778:16,1784:23

Dovenmuehle18:1830:19,2031:10,1732:1664:7,8,1265:1666:12,1566:1667:2,1971:3,1071:21,2172:1373:2,599:21,23100:13,16100:18

Dovenmue...18:1965:17

Doyle 1:3draw 81:8drawn 38:2253:21

Drive 13:913:11,19




134

115:23116:8123:10

due 70:2095:12100:7112:2

duly 4:14125:4

DUPAGE126:19

DWI 121:17

EE 3:1,7e-mail88:24115:3

earlier18:2339:248:1749:1158:6,962:6 71:378:1279:5,1284:11,1297:2114:8120:21

early 15:20easier26:2472:6118:24

easily24:1825:1492:10104:2

EASTERN 1:2education14:2

educational13:22

effective59:1760:562:2269:872:1194:11

EIN 118:6either 46:948:1055:656:20118:19

either/or122:24

Electronic75:4

electron...88:21

elementary63:21

employed4:24 7:1311:10

employee39:15,18121:1125:10,11

employees30:1 50:2111:23112:4,6

employment14:5

endorsed75:1578:12,2379:4,7107:22108:6

endorsement38:1544:11,1345:6,9,1745:19,2148:5

endorsem...122:15

endorses77:18

engage121:10

enjoyed14:18

enter 81:15entered22:631:2441:860:20122:20

enters 20:1entire 6:1775:13

entirety89:22

entities7:16 8:148:20,239:4 10:810:2411:6 12:113:3,419:5 58:458:5113:16117:5

entity 45:769:10108:5

equal122:10

Erica 111:5111:7,11

ERRATA126:1

error 54:19ERRORS126:5

escrow23:21,22105:16

essentially95:16

estate23:23

eventually16:8

everybody40:869:1189:17

evidence107:18

Ex 3:8,9,93:10,103:11,113:12,123:13,133:1449:23

ex-employee110:19113:8

Exact103:18

exactly30:1673:2186:1793:596:11

examination3:4,4,54:16108:11122:1125:3

examined4:15

example11:9 96:896:1697:5

excellent35:9

Excuse 39:7executed

41:5exhibit 5:734:1635:136:1437:19,2037:2138:1,740:1,1040:1841:2142:8,1442:17,2343:1,8,2243:2444:5 47:547:1352:6,853:1054:8,1655:2 58:861:1,4,2163:2,7,1069:770:1374:2,5,1075:2,6,977:5,7,1578:6 79:279:6,2182:1983:4,2090:2,391:7,1398:23,24101:21102:18103:3,20105:21,22106:4108:13,14108:16,17109:2,2122:19

exhibits36:10

40:5103:21

exist 15:19122:14

existence54:20

exists15:17

expected14:19

experience15:5

explain26:8 32:884:2291:1797:1898:4109:13110:1

explanation52:1178:21

Exs 74:20extra 38:1539:5

extras27:2173:15

FF 13:24facility30:21

fact 72:1374:1104:11105:4

facts 7:12family 16:316:10

Fannie 9:139:15,169:18

far 7:108:3,4 9:1




135

11:1914:618:2032:1 36:294:197:13100:4

Farm 4:3father-i...16:5

FCC 8:8FDIC 19:919:21,2220:1,15

Fed 49:23Federal 1:94:9 6:88:3,781:4,9

fee 26:1,1085:5106:1

feel 93:17fees 26:465:2367:2283:1884:3,2498:18105:20,24

felony121:15

FHA 100:6figure53:1457:480:2381:1492:9 96:6

figuring117:4

file 22:530:6,6,1732:1 36:537:1 41:741:8,9,18

41:2342:1,2,443:6,1043:1145:2250:24,2451:6 68:568:2271:979:2280:7,981:21,2281:2382:1,2,6

filed 30:1137:1666:4,9,1868:18,1868:18,2069:12,1669:1770:3,671:1672:2184:890:2494:9,19117:20122:13

files 34:350:3,663:23

filing 64:670:2183:18112:2

final121:12

financial8:1,2,1667:15

find 18:1231:1935:1686:1 89:9

fine 20:23

26:7 35:549:1669:2372:1273:8 74:483:1284:19103:19112:18

finish118:17

finishing117:3

fire-safe49:12

fireproof42:2

firm 14:2134:6,1035:2051:952:1453:463:2465:8,1466:12,1767:2,1971:9

firm's 53:7first 4:145:18,1915:4 16:127:832:18,2037:444:1362:1 70:672:9 84:684:1491:1293:1498:10,15100:8101:5

five 26:1027:6

108:7flip 84:2085:16

floor 57:757:12

focus121:15

folder 34:134:1238:7 80:380:19

follow26:2446:14

following81:19

follows4:15

foreclosing32:5

foreclosure7:4 21:724:2434:3 37:251:3 66:484:13,18114:12118:19123:13

foregoing125:5126:2

forget36:10

forgot 9:4form 70:7103:20

format92:10

formerly45:10

Fort 14:12forward42:1659:7

foundation

68:8109:24

four 27:644:8

Francisco81:2

fraudulent116:12,17117:6

FRB 81:1Freedman2:2 34:736:2464:22

full 40:561:1496:3107:11,12

function18:2221:10

function...9:1 21:7

functions8:2117:1918:5 21:121:1828:1629:20

funding33:144:1745:7,1146:5 48:248:1951:18,1853:19,2381:8

funds 12:394:1,2394:2495:1896:17,2497:12

further

121:20124:3

Ggeneral11:2121:1 31:332:1165:1187:22110:10

General's117:22

generate92:4

generated23:691:18,2291:23

genuine46:9,15

getting15:2429:930:1951:1068:13116:15120:16

give 11:913:2114:7 15:734:19,2340:649:1361:2 75:682:10

given 4:1192:15103:14125:7126:3

gives 85:5GMAC 32:2133:1245:1,4,6




136

45:6,7,945:10,1246:554:1376:480:1790:2091:2497:5 98:7100:8,11100:12,21118:4119:17,18120:14,15

go 11:414:6 23:223:13,1526:15,2227:12,2327:2430:1033:2035:1,4,1036:14,1742:3,4,543:21,2449:1250:3,1650:2459:1162:1569:2,2072:1 78:581:984:1485:1986:1387:1092:1,1193:1095:19,2496:1697:20,2198:9,1199:8,9100:4

101:7103:10,11103:21104:16106:13107:9108:15111:3114:19118:4

goes 9:225:847:1759:773:2084:1986:693:21,22

going 5:1216:1818:5 24:126:13,1432:1335:3,1036:12,1337:1838:639:21,2140:6,1542:1343:21,2347:2,3,2450:1652:2,1557:962:12,2263:1264:4 65:969:2270:8,1674:1,1174:1475:1379:2182:8,1082:11

83:15,1785:2088:1093:1597:24103:18105:15108:14112:3,14115:2,7117:17118:11119:10123:1124:1

good 56:1561:964:14

grabbing84:20

grace 25:19graduated13:24

Grant 31:131:2

Granting94:10

Gray 44:2146:8,2246:23

green 42:1742:1783:8,9122:19

group 1:1914:8,2417:132:2248:2062:9,1982:1698:23105:22122:5,7

guess 12:1523:2

100:17guessed32:4

guessing28:5 37:141:1348:1859:2364:7 80:392:9

guy 26:6

HH 3:7half 9:2161:19

Hamilton31:1

hand 38:640:15108:14125:13

handed33:2441:12,2379:2283:1997:18

handle 19:164:5

handles19:13

handling31:10,1832:1680:18

happen 25:539:7,1061:2076:7

happened39:1458:10,1859:15,2261:10,1971:14

happens107:5

hard 46:2146:23104:9

harm 112:5harmed 87:787:8

head 64:20hear 16:988:12

heard 6:727:3

hearing5:21

held 11:115:8

help 85:2496:2399:2,6

helped 83:7hereto125:12

hereunto125:13

high 28:989:20

histories7:3 91:2192:11,17100:19

history13:2214:5 22:724:926:15,2091:2499:20,24100:12101:3102:7,16102:23

hold 82:9108:1

holding96:1,1

Home 80:1381:9

Honorable4:12

hospital16:7

housed 21:423:1042:2 82:3

huh 99:3human 26:3

IIaria 2:23:5 8:611:2214:1617:2018:4 20:520:2121:222:1226:1830:7,1234:5,1134:17,2035:2,7,1035:2036:1037:3,842:1046:1147:1248:2249:1452:7,1152:2453:6,1255:16,2256:5,957:8,1757:2159:863:1065:4,7,1966:23




137

67:4,6,1168:8,1369:2171:1872:1673:1474:3,9,1375:1277:1978:2481:1382:1883:1487:2288:1,1090:7,9,1290:1691:1,697:11,1798:3,22102:10104:13,24105:7,11107:6,16108:3,9109:15,20109:24110:12,18111:1,9111:15,18111:22112:1,7112:11,15114:15115:22116:3,13117:2,7117:14,23118:10,15118:20119:2,15119:23120:4121:5,9121:14,22122:2

123:22124:1

idea 9:1911:2113:2114:7 15:742:1649:1380:1981:1683:19103:8

identifi...5:9 38:340:1243:353:2461:6 63:374:7,2282:2190:5 91:291:9

identify42:21

ignorance32:3 39:7

Illinois1:1,13,151:21 2:44:3,675:1577:1115:7,13115:20,24120:14125:1,13126:19

image 22:21imaged 23:824:5,13

images 22:4imaging22:1023:9,1324:1439:1,4

41:1342:1881:19

immediately96:10

important8:1216:1139:13

inception115:18116:4

include12:365:10,1166:8

included38:2339:554:1885:14

includes27:752:13

incorrectly38:23

indicate46:1876:9

indirectly125:12

individual92:6

individuals31:24110:13122:5,7

informally59:3

information21:325:1137:545:20,2452:1464:22

65:2,5,1465:18,2066:1667:1,871:2,488:1489:4,793:4105:5119:5123:18

informed72:19

initial46:1

initially16:1

ink 39:19inquiries6:13

inside22:21

inspection25:786:13

inspections24:2325:286:2489:15

Installment95:11

instance24:2151:294:1896:7

institution15:1

instruction66:11

insurance95:13105:9,16105:17,18119:10

insured 8:8intend 6:18interest86:2087:795:1398:12,1398:15100:7

interested17:6125:12

internal60:14,1860:2283:23

interrog...97:23

inventory49:24

investor11:458:2060:6,769:1497:9,16

investors12:1213:5 19:839:16

invoice24:2,1525:1083:15,2485:10,1185:12,1788:15,1889:11101:18102:8,9102:20

invoices24:1227:14,1883:2385:2,12

85:1586:7,987:14103:2106:4

involved28:3 30:562:20

involvement10:23

irrelevant101:2,3

Irwin113:11,12

Israel29:17,22

Israel's30:3

issue 72:2488:397:22123:17

issues16:1574:1688:1112:3

items 29:2

JJ 46:2248:1

jacket 42:151:7 82:3106:16,20106:23107:1,5,9

Jacob113:14,15

James113:11,12

January60:1268:18,1868:19,1968:20,20




138

69:1172:8

Jason 48:1Jeffrey120:22

Jersey115:10

job 21:1729:2030:355:21,23

jobs 15:1,3Johnson114:4,5

Jorie 1:141:20 4:5

Judge 1:34:12

July 1:74:4 66:466:5117:21126:2

June 14:1115:13,1516:14,1616:1837:7 66:569:1699:16122:17

KK 100:7Kane 76:24keep 10:622:4 24:227:2034:1895:2,18106:24107:7118:10

keeping40:2

kept 16:10

22:8 23:324:1537:1 51:481:2382:1,2,5

key 99:23kill 99:3kind 8:621:151:1452:1593:2497:2101:2103:20

kindly118:11

kinds 123:4King 120:24121:1

knew 58:969:18

know 5:26:8 9:1,810:2311:812:1013:4,1418:5,1920:2221:6,1621:1625:526:2127:1130:1632:12,1532:1833:2 34:934:1335:2336:2 41:442:2143:2045:16,1945:24

48:949:16,2352:5,1552:19,2156:2,6,956:12,1956:2457:1,3,357:5,2057:20,2258:12,1459:4,1461:10,1562:2164:1768:11,1372:475:1577:22,2277:2478:3,4,779:1,2,1679:1680:1781:1885:6,1887:8,2188:193:1094:897:2098:899:14104:24106:14109:3,11109:12113:1,5114:20115:14,20116:15,23118:6120:17,19121:2123:20

knowing

71:7knowledge31:1041:445:1346:3,4,946:1448:9 56:257:16,2058:3 65:3116:1,24117:5,12122:4

knowledg...6:15

known 45:1056:8,1672:18

knows 56:10

LL 44:2146:8,22

labeled38:740:1883:20,23105:21,24

labeling37:1940:3

LAC 10:1710:20

Lake 18:2030:22115:22,23116:8123:19

late 26:2,226:4,1083:1498:18105:20,24106:1

law 1:1916:11

52:1453:4,763:2465:8,1466:12,1767:2,1971:975:15

lead 45:15107:17

lease 20:19leave 14:1014:2127:23110:24111:14

leaves107:2

left 14:2044:1180:8,12103:7111:3113:5,9120:20

Legacy 13:913:11,1918:2419:2,6,1720:12,1320:14123:10

legal 8:2016:1555:1672:1673:7 99:9104:14

lender17:2345:179:23

lenders63:1980:13

let's 7:15

22:1524:2226:1627:2330:1036:14,1740:1 41:842:1543:2455:1056:1258:859:1172:1,877:1478:584:1285:1990:191:1297:5108:7

letter 7:423:561:1667:19,2469:6,10

letters22:8,9,1823:6,1162:21115:21120:16

Leverette110:17

Lewis 34:434:6

License1:12125:1,16

licensed120:14

light 52:16limiting44:21

Lindberg




139

2:2 34:736:24

line 26:1526:1559:9 74:975:1396:17116:3118:20126:6

links 110:3list 6:136:17 7:823:14112:4

listed13:11,1244:23

lists 47:2255:13

litigation112:23113:21120:23121:3

little14:2118:2326:13,1562:3,1184:11,11100:17123:2

LLC 36:2444:2045:1,4,845:9,1148:251:1880:13

LLP 9:9LMV 12:1813:817:15

LNV 7:12,189:9 11:2

11:1433:1435:1436:8,938:16,2238:2339:1940:2047:1448:649:2250:1851:12,2354:1155:958:16,1860:3,6,2362:1369:3,1269:1770:372:2173:12,1375:4,977:6,1277:1681:2101:12,16103:1109:1,3115:1119:17,18122:10,18123:7,9123:12

loan 10:3,510:6,1710:2012:5,9,1212:1717:1419:16,1721:3,1121:2223:1426:12

32:19,2032:23,2433:7,1441:1846:148:1349:9,2050:2052:1353:858:17,2459:5,1460:261:2362:1365:2,2468:2,469:7 70:371:10,2272:11,1373:276:1380:4,5,1681:1,985:1,7,2486:2189:2391:2192:1796:1697:1,1098:15102:7,14102:23107:4,4115:11,18116:4,5116:20118:3,4

loans 9:139:1610:2411:1,4,2419:4 23:725:2232:9 50:1

50:5,1458:2078:1681:3,10

located14:129:23115:4

location123:9

locations114:21

long 23:1744:8 56:856:16,1956:2370:12,2472:12

longer15:17113:4,9113:22114:6

look 12:626:2263:868:2180:6,2282:9,1190:993:1196:5,1798:17100:16106:7108:16,22

looked92:1798:17123:4

looking11:2122:15,1622:1744:3,1352:3,24

54:2,3,362:1173:1086:387:1893:1295:15103:19105:20

looks 27:344:15,1644:2045:5 48:451:11,1351:1980:1481:1682:1383:2385:8,1086:1,4,889:1291:13,1498:899:20101:19103:12106:9

lose 55:596:7

loss 20:1521:7110:20

loss-share19:9,2020:9

lost 102:11lot 7:9,1112:1113:2054:4 81:896:597:19103:5

lots 89:20Louis 34:12

LPP 13:9LPS 17:1817:19,2318:9,1420:10,1820:2422:3,1122:2123:4 24:660:2183:2385:10,2492:4101:18104:1

lunch 74:16

MM 1:12,19125:1,16

M-A-L-O-...4:21

Mae 9:14,159:18

Mae-type9:16

Mail 99:11making62:2072:16112:7

Maloney 1:73:3 4:64:10,134:19 5:1337:2040:3,9,1541:2142:16,2251:1061:2163:670:1375:2,5,877:5,7,1177:14




140

83:2090:191:13126:2,18

managed41:976:19

management9:5 21:2428:1562:2083:2485:11101:19

manager51:1964:15114:6,10

manila 34:138:7

Manual99:17

March 75:1079:1381:16

Marcia 1:46:1

mark 42:1479:21108:23,24108:24

marked 5:85:13 38:240:1143:2 61:563:2,674:6,2182:2090:4 91:8

marks 109:7123:2,5

Martin47:16,1855:9,1056:8,1278:8

107:14108:19,20

mass 49:2389:14

master 33:542:1976:11,21

match 83:1085:5100:24106:5

material97:20104:18

materials46:18

matter107:1,18

matters18:13125:4

maze 55:7Mead 78:1mean 8:79:2112:2417:2319:2,325:2131:2341:1652:4 57:262:578:1481:287:2194:396:1397:24104:13113:18122:21

meaning9:1522:1530:6,14

30:1996:14

means 6:98:1119:2194:13

meant 19:1992:16

mentioned8:14 9:510:9 12:712:19,2314:1718:2320:431:2133:9 47:948:2158:9 83:6114:8

mentions61:24

merge 13:10MERS 36:973:1275:3 77:677:16

MGC 5:17:14,179:3,7,1811:9,1211:15,2412:3,8,1613:1,815:9,1015:2028:11,1429:8 30:150:19,2257:2458:771:2176:16,1791:2497:6,6100:18

110:23,24111:5,23114:14,18114:19,22115:1119:19120:17122:10

Michael78:1113:24114:1

Michelle34:4,6,12

minutes 6:723:1934:24108:8

mischara...78:24

missed120:21

missing36:338:1863:1088:20

mitigation21:7110:20

mixed120:16

Mm-hmm23:2489:10

money 12:1359:6 88:489:2097:3

Montgomery109:18

month118:24119:1,7

monthly86:18

96:397:16113:7

months 5:1916:278:2279:12,15

mortgage5:1 7:2,27:17 9:79:9 13:214:1215:13,2017:1820:10,1820:2421:1722:3 23:424:2235:16,1736:4,940:7 45:145:4,9,1046:550:1361:2363:1266:2,670:8,9,2273:16,2374:12,1575:2,3,875:14,1975:20,2176:2,5,977:1778:2179:11,1279:1880:1199:21,23101:15,16101:24102:14103:1,4107:21

117:21119:10

mortgages32:558:2278:11116:11117:6

Motion94:10

move 26:1642:1650:757:1160:22123:15,16

moving107:7

Mule 18:20multiple31:2458:20114:21

NN 3:1Nagodoches14:1

name 4:1,64:1815:16,1833:1044:2048:1,651:18114:3122:9

names 18:2364:19110:1,16112:4,14112:16,17120:21

Naperville2:4

Nautilus




141

81:18near 86:899:9

necessarily103:2

need 21:1121:1926:1070:16102:3

needed21:2168:5

never 32:576:3,498:2123:3

new 39:1549:10107:9115:10116:20

normal52:1971:13

normally52:2153:1863:2072:193:2094:2,22108:1,4

NORTHERN1:1

Nos 74:21note 26:9,926:1133:4,1833:2236:21,2136:2337:1138:8,1739:2,6,2240:7,20

40:2341:24,2442:4,843:7,1144:1,8,1244:2247:2,4,647:2248:15,1949:7,1051:2,6,751:8 55:863:1366:2,367:1169:1570:11,1770:2075:1577:1878:1,1278:2279:7,1180:1082:3,4,598:10,11101:8102:7,14102:23106:10,11106:14,16106:20,23107:1,2,5107:8,8,9107:11,12107:22122:14,16122:17123:14

noted 126:3notes 7:1,321:5 22:724:1031:21,2332:2 42:243:7 49:4

49:1250:7,860:2063:2076:8104:1,2104:16105:1108:2116:11117:6122:11

notice 4:115:15 52:260:11,1194:7

noticed52:17

Notifica...61:22

notify69:1172:20

number 9:1423:1442:2052:1367:2180:4,593:14

numbered100:1

numbers26:2353:889:19118:6

OOak 1:14,21Oakbrook4:5

oath 53:3object75:1388:10

112:14objected103:13

objection11:2214:1617:2018:4 20:520:2121:222:1230:742:1046:1148:2249:1452:2455:16,2256:5,957:8,1757:2159:8 65:465:1967:4,1168:872:1675:1677:19,2078:2481:1387:2297:11104:13,21105:2,11107:6,16108:3109:15,20109:24110:18111:1,9111:15112:7,11112:17114:15116:13117:7,14

117:23118:11,15119:2,23120:4121:14

objections104:14

obvious17:9

obviously17:618:1124:1 25:828:349:1151:1462:6

occupied88:23

occur 4:11occurred58:2394:5

October30:15

of'11 91:15offer 52:11office29:2352:1257:769:1676:24115:5117:22

officer6:1244:21

offices115:1

Oh 58:17okay 5:2,126:4 7:87:12,177:19 9:39:19,23

10:1411:1312:3,1012:2213:2315:1116:2,1816:2417:1122:1723:2 24:625:3,427:20,2328:15,2429:2,1631:17,2032:2234:1437:10,2038:1839:7,2139:2340:1741:4,1141:1942:6,2342:2443:1444:2 45:346:8 47:947:1948:4,1452:4,1754:2,355:1358:1259:13,2161:1,3,961:17,2462:3,8,1762:2463:1464:366:1168:2469:1 70:5




142

72:9,2473:2374:1775:1,2175:2477:4,1678:5,1080:883:18,1985:11,1985:2287:4,1489:9 90:191:1293:7 94:699:13102:16103:9,13106:13108:9

on-site86:15

once 27:771:8 72:2

ones 9:1110:14,1820:9,1227:753:1964:5100:21101:20,20102:8

open 37:4opened 21:8operations19:121:2228:2231:2

opposite57:12

order 6:2351:12,1763:2468:5

89:1494:10,11

ordered4:11

original7:1 10:510:627:1233:4,7,1833:22,2335:19,2135:2436:2,4,736:21,2337:1138:8,1338:17,2039:2440:2,7,1641:17,2443:9,1144:1,4,844:22,2345:1 49:749:12,1549:2050:7,8,2050:2151:6,8,2452:1 53:153:1754:3,4,555:3 61:261:9,1168:17,1769:1570:16,1673:17,2375:19,2075:2176:1,5,976:12,1777:879:2280:11,1681:21

82:3,983:21107:9,12109:5122:14,16

originally7:1244:1645:4 48:5

originals35:4,642:3109:6

originated90:2191:21

origination27:781:2190:23

orignal36:7

outcome125:12

outlining122:9

outside20:15

overnight116:7

owed 64:2365:13,1567:15,2068:3

owing 112:2owned 7:219:15,1817:14,1519:4,7

owner 12:1729:1,271:22122:17

owners 20:9107:9

ownership

47:2,358:1760:3,1160:1562:769:1870:4123:12

owns 20:1897:10

PP.O 123:20page 3:219:2037:444:1247:454:17,1754:2368:16,2169:2 70:773:1884:3,6,1484:2185:8,2387:1989:999:10,24100:1,8103:12108:16,17126:6

pages 44:870:2484:4100:15108:18,22

paid 25:925:1995:5,8100:7107:4,11107:11

paper 34:1542:7,18

55:7paragraph62:1

parent 9:6Parkway4:23 13:713:12,1613:18115:5123:10

part 8:920:1323:20,2224:6,737:17,1742:1152:1953:4 54:955:2358:1568:1771:6,1372:589:1695:2298:7 99:999:18,22104:1,15104:18

particular22:540:2258:2468:1 81:389:1397:3

parties7:22117:10,12125:11,12

parts 70:6party 6:13107:22

passed 16:8Paul 1:1926:18

73:1487:2288:1090:16

pay 12:1123:22,2324:226:14,2051:11,1799:20102:7,16

payee 44:2244:2399:12,15100:9

paying24:1660:2377:12

payment 7:312:5,921:4 22:724:9,1026:291:20,2395:1196:4,9,996:1999:24100:12,19100:24101:1102:17,22116:2

payments67:2187:593:1895:9 96:396:19,2297:7,8105:16114:19,24115:6,9115:12,15115:17




143

116:8123:18,20

PDF 53:12penalty100:7

PENNY 1:20people12:1262:963:1971:1083:6109:10110:4,4111:20

percent9:2126:10

percentage9:19

Perfect74:13

period25:2030:893:1998:13

permissible107:18

person 6:156:15 25:831:1232:1064:13,1477:17,1878:2 87:9122:3

personal125:6

personally56:10

perspective8:21

pertaining1:11 88:1119:5

petition70:2193:2294:1,1794:20,2194:2395:5,8,10

Pfizer120:3

phonetic113:2,14

phrasing117:4,18

physical123:11

picked72:1387:20

pictures87:1088:5 89:4

piece 42:742:17

pink 83:17place 24:925:845:2146:1,278:10116:10,20116:23125:9

placed45:1948:1054:12

placing53:4

plan 63:1174:1698:5

plane 16:15Plano 4:23plans 7:5plat 22:3platform

17:1818:220:18,2422:4,1123:1,3,424:6,7

pleadings7:5

please 4:184:20 8:1829:1461:20

pledged81:1,4,1181:12

POA 55:19POC 27:1664:682:12

point 8:1212:1614:2225:2326:1250:2256:1566:669:13,1572:15104:20118:3121:10

pointed108:24123:19

pointing91:498:22

policy 53:7portfolio19:1,2,719:820:1450:1581:489:15,22

114:6portfolios19:6

portion61:1395:19

position28:24109:14

positions15:8109:11

possession26:2135:20106:19108:14

possible69:8

post 51:1858:793:2294:1,1794:20,2194:2395:5,8,10

postcards112:16

potentially65:2097:22116:14122:5

pre-peti...93:2194:1,17

preparation62:466:1799:6

prepare6:2357:1462:963:2467:2,10

67:2368:2383:3,7106:13

prepared6:20 71:872:3 93:7100:22

prepares58:2

present1:18 2:115:10

presented103:3

president28:4,7,2028:21,2231:255:11,1456:2357:2,6113:12,15

presiden...28:18

presidents28:13,19

presume34:11

presupposes116:14

pretty 28:9108:8

previous125:3

previously4:11 10:982:1492:15122:8,20

primarily55:21

principal95:1398:8,14

print 25:15

41:1542:19104:9,23105:6

printed51:21104:2

prior 5:2158:1959:5,2371:1173:1111:3,4120:11

Priority34:3

privileged65:4,6,20105:4

probably26:2432:4 37:178:7 86:598:4

probation121:18,19

problem35:1242:1271:1773:2196:12,13

problems16:3

procedure1:10 4:96:8 49:949:13,1762:12,1463:2264:1,3,4116:23

procedures78:19116:10,16116:20




144

proceeding117:24119:6

proceedings118:19125:7

process35:1152:12,2071:6,7,1384:13,19

Processing17:23

processor51:20

produce104:21,23

produced102:9103:16104:18

product65:21

Production102:5,14

program20:19

programmed26:5

promise39:2240:2 70:9

promised79:18

Promissory47:6

proof 25:437:1638:19,2444:4 52:954:18,1962:2463:7,2366:9,1867:2,9,1067:23

68:5,1668:1670:2,5,770:2271:6,8,1672:2 84:184:2,499:10118:19122:13

properties24:2385:1687:3

property10:1024:2325:2,7,986:13,1486:1687:1,6,1388:689:14

protect86:20

protection49:11

provided38:1365:17,1866:1671:376:2392:17

pull 22:1923:1425:2226:1480:6

pulled 39:139:2

pulling36:6

purchase10:2433:3

48:2158:1559:2

purchased32:2433:1448:1949:1050:5,1459:6117:12

purchaser49:21

purpose7:1054:2366:2167:3,693:14

purposes27:1 37:291:1121:15

pursuant1:9 4:106:6,7

put 23:1327:1433:841:1843:2244:16,1648:6 50:767:991:1992:1093:17

Qqualified1:13

quality29:21

question17:2128:2,12

41:1257:1059:9,1262:1064:1370:15,1872:6,7,1773:4,6,975:2478:1884:10101:1105:19106:21,24107:17108:23116:13,15116:17,18117:18118:17121:12

questioning74:975:13

questions7:1161:1263:2170:1085:2097:19,2198:5103:10120:6,20121:6123:1

quick 70:1770:17108:23

quickly63:9108:8

quite 10:2225:456:2286:6

Rrandom87:19,20

Randy110:17

range 86:7rate 98:10read 6:1746:21,2392:19101:4126:2

readable92:10

reading112:3

ready 29:9real 23:2363:970:17,17

reality118:12

realize91:4

really 8:198:2214:1941:2242:7 73:375:24101:1106:20,23108:23

reason 11:167:1,1467:1878:1198:9104:4

reasons17:9

recall 6:37:6 59:20109:17111:2113:7

115:19123:21

receipt76:12

receive33:481:15

received33:743:10,1348:1649:7,1050:4,1176:3,4,596:2097:14110:14

receiving76:9 87:5

Recess79:19

reclarify102:10

reconcil...91:2092:13

record 4:826:2234:135:1136:14,1636:17,1836:19,2240:746:2147:1249:850:1052:7 75:175:12,1688:11,1197:1798:22108:9,10108:13112:8




145

120:4,6121:5,6122:20125:7

recorded36:849:2475:5,1079:1289:15

Recorder76:24

recordke...122:11

records22:676:18

recourse51:17

red 80:3redact52:1453:8,16

redaction52:12

redirect121:11,23123:23

redirected96:2

reduced44:5125:6

Reference93:13

references62:8

referencing94:8

referring47:1149:660:2479:299:21

reflect 4:8

reflective98:20

regarding7:1126:2043:6,765:296:16

regards 5:521:4 43:964:574:1078:1995:1097:1122:19

Registra...75:4

regular29:5105:10,17105:18

related22:571:2288:3

relates84:3

relation...7:16 8:139:12,2311:24

relative125:10,11

releases37:9

relevance14:1620:5,2148:2249:1455:2256:5 57:857:2187:2397:11

107:6,16108:3109:15,20109:24110:18111:1,9111:15112:11117:7,14117:23118:15119:23

relevancy21:277:20104:15

relevant93:17119:5

reliance54:22

Relief94:10,11

remaining97:20

remember30:15120:9

remit 97:15remove37:12

removing34:22

repeat62:10

rephrase116:19

replaces92:22

report25:20,2187:10,1587:1688:8,2088:21

report-g...

25:24reported88:6 89:7125:6

reporter4:1 40:440:6125:1

Reporters4:2

reporting22:1126:6

represent18:1363:16100:6

request102:4,13103:11,12104:11

requesting23:16

require26:3

reserve81:5,6124:1

residential10:1912:2313:115:19,2217:4,732:2444:1745:7,1146:5 48:248:1951:1753:19,23

respond99:10

Response99:1

responsi...

29:3responsi...32:11

responsible30:6,1632:19

restate71:24

Results85:24

review 6:2350:3104:17105:1

reviewed6:4 7:1,17:3,631:2146:1971:9,1171:17,1871:2072:2,7,15106:16

RFC 38:1538:22

right 12:1412:20,2117:8,1023:2324:1136:643:16,2246:1 52:953:256:20,2161:1072:874:1380:8,981:2483:1884:1,7,984:2188:1991:3

98:17100:5101:5,6,8103:22105:3108:24117:4

Road 2:34:3

Rob 112:10112:20

room 43:16rooms 82:2Rule 1:64:9

Rules 1:104:9 6:8

running95:2121:9

SS 3:7 4:3safe 42:2,549:12

safeguard85:16,1985:2389:2,8

SAITH 124:3sake 36:1997:21104:15

Sale 61:22sales 33:3San 81:1saw 5:19106:16

Saxon 14:1215:13

saying 8:911:1819:1438:1143:1847:23




146

53:1765:867:1973:1100:8,14

says 12:1626:9,1134:2,441:10,1241:15,1542:1844:1746:2251:11,1280:2481:1,1185:2487:1988:15,1695:598:1899:21100:1104:11105:3,5

scan 22:10scanned23:824:1350:681:19

scanning22:2123:9

scheduled32:17

scope104:12

Scott 64:1864:21114:9,11

screens39:191:24

second 7:926:22

30:12,1431:132:1536:15,1847:1,1347:1451:1352:159:1272:186:2392:1497:22108:16,17

Seconds23:19

section89:24

sections83:2484:2

secured88:7,9

security86:2087:7

see 5:1812:6 25:425:2228:3 41:852:1 69:370:16,1771:1783:987:11,1288:1589:1998:7100:6102:22104:17108:15

seeing 5:21seen 5:167:9 8:28:10

39:1046:1763:1582:1498:2 99:4108:5109:7123:3

segregated19:10

select23:15

sell 107:4seller49:20

semantics73:7

send 25:1025:1051:264:2267:8,1467:18107:12115:6

senior 28:428:13,20

sense 101:7sent 22:1823:7 24:337:138:2439:549:20,2351:961:1662:8,2263:2468:2106:17116:8

sentence117:3

separate15:1722:10

27:7 39:340:2 42:1105:2

separately82:5

September96:21

series 60:8101:19112:16

serve 21:1served121:18

server84:19

service 9:315:14,1821:1160:1163:2099:11116:6120:11

serviced9:1820:1132:21

servicer7:17 10:312:1

servicers24:22

services9:7 17:2318:1180:13

servicing7:3,149:1311:11,1311:14,1911:2412:1117:121:2231:21

60:20119:13

set 13:516:1426:4,897:22121:22125:13

share 17:3123:7,9

shared19:13

Shearhart120:22

shed 52:16sheet 27:286:2392:2,8103:14,20103:22122:19126:1

sheets106:17

Shift 6:1shifted76:18

shipping49:23

shoes 85:17short 95:19Shorthand125:1

show 5:1324:1045:2060:14,1995:8

showed105:14106:17123:2

showing63:693:18

shown 37:13

96:10123:10

shows 23:524:327:1633:6 41:743:1151:1,960:8,1381:1589:24

side 10:1912:2313:1,515:1917:4,4,732:6 80:480:8,9,1280:19112:24114:5

sides 57:12sign 55:1955:2156:3,4107:15118:14,18

signature44:1246:8,1551:2454:5108:22109:1

signed44:2148:168:1978:1,2,7108:18

signing44:21

signs 37:6similar43:5

simultan...




147

58:2278:17

single 87:1Sir 4:18site 51:7sitting31:9

sixth 54:1754:23

slue 116:14small 9:149:22

software17:1818:925:1826:1

sold 20:19107:8

somebody12:938:2439:4

sorry 16:926:1830:3,536:1161:2,1561:1862:1064:867:1769:2083:11,14102:10110:12114:16

sort 11:1711:2012:1517:2 27:349:9 51:358:1559:165:18

sound 12:19

32:6 84:1sounded21:19

sounds 9:512:21

Sowerman113:1,3

speak104:14

speaking87:19

spearheaded62:19

special28:7

specialized20:3

specific21:1531:1232:1079:396:16107:22108:5110:5112:17122:3,4122:14,21

specific...12:7 32:175:15

specifics65:10

specified125:9

specify22:1330:7 59:871:18105:12116:3119:15

speculation46:1157:18

67:4,577:19

spell 4:2029:14

spent 16:24split 15:21spot 123:14spread 27:286:2392:2,8103:14,20103:22

staff 91:2092:7

stagnant115:18

stamp 44:1544:1748:6,1051:13,1451:16,2354:1168:22107:11

stamps 48:548:11

standard92:8

standing112:3

stands 28:5staple34:2237:12

start 7:1514:855:1056:1283:17,1791:298:13

started14:10,2350:1256:17

starting

90:7starts85:2490:17,1791:14,1496:12,13

state 1:134:18 14:1125:1126:19

stated49:1188:18

statement6:12 37:472:1780:12

statements24:12

States 1:11:10

stay 123:14stays 107:1stenogra...125:6

Steven13:24113:20

sticker34:2,4,5

stipulate112:13

stop 42:1543:23

stoppages42:15

street87:12

streets13:10

Strickler1:12 4:1125:1,16

strike25:17113:1

114:18116:18117:11,17

structure10:13

stuff 27:1283:1 96:6

styled39:17

submitted71:12

subscribed126:20

subseque...27:8

subserviced115:12116:5

subservicer18:16,1719:1164:9100:18115:8

subservi...18:2419:10

subsidia...117:1,11

sued 117:1117:2,6117:10,12

sufficie...42:21

sufficing103:15

suggest35:3

Suite 1:141:21 2:3

SULAIMAN1:19

summary27:1682:1285:9

Suppleme...93:1

suppleme...102:18

Supplements92:24

supply114:12

supposed39:1747:2359:17,22118:4

sure 10:2219:1925:6,935:247:2255:4,760:161:2062:1563:1586:14,1587:691:1993:11103:24105:7106:18112:15116:11

suspect80:16

suspense95:20,2395:2496:1,1796:2097:1

SVP 28:5112:24113:4,8114:1

Swift 1:4,45:5,23




148

6:2Swift/A34:10

Swifts 12:9Swifts'22:16,1730:631:1132:19

sworn 4:74:15125:4126:20

system 17:317:5,1318:8 21:521:2322:8,1022:10,2122:2223:7,9,1023:13,2224:1425:1826:5 33:539:443:1249:8 50:953:1360:19,2275:4 76:876:11,1476:1878:1080:688:2289:2 94:599:18106:10,12

systems17:17

TT 1:4 3:7tab 84:20tabs 85:4

take 6:1121:1423:1824:926:2227:1528:1832:1443:2463:8 64:970:1872:274:10,1279:1887:1097:5108:7

taken 1:144:1019:2137:14,1579:19125:9126:2

takes 21:1021:18,2425:728:17,1962:14

talk 6:186:2039:2270:9 73:774:14,1577:1492:15

talked 6:110:1520:332:13,1432:1439:2 40:562:673:24,2484:10,11110:4,13

110:14talking16:2418:1427:1342:2244:5 45:347:13,1770:1271:2184:1287:2488:11112:1121:6,7

talks 11:2399:11

taxes 23:2323:2395:13

Taylor109:23110:6

tech 26:5technically15:1117:1495:12

tell 8:425:1832:2 38:940:1947:10,1061:2162:368:2073:19

telling7:15 42:660:4104:22

tells106:10

templates21:8

terms 11:17

11:2017:1,1726:9 47:247:349:1098:11106:11

testified4:1533:1354:16,1856:1079:3,5122:8

testify52:1653:757:18125:4

testimony79:1121:15125:7

Texas 4:2314:129:2330:1931:443:18

Thank 16:1391:496:23

thing 20:823:17,2035:2 47:151:1,2153:2377:480:24

things 17:222:126:1627:2428:18,2029:346:22

51:2363:2180:1292:18103:5,7103:19116:16

think 7:68:2421:2128:831:2337:3,5,840:842:11,2047:1448:1751:8,1656:2058:963:1264:1972:5,973:2478:679:1782:2483:1984:14,1684:2086:2 91:397:1598:3,1299:16100:4,9103:5105:14110:6111:3121:14

thinking61:15118:23

Thomas111:5,7111:11

thought90:10

threaten119:4

three 16:731:680:20

ticket16:16

tied 10:1827:18

Tim 109:23110:6

time 4:415:416:2425:126:1227:1130:7,1030:1132:1639:1146:148:1250:1256:2259:5,863:1766:667:1769:10,1369:15,1970:1271:2373:1,5,776:16,1778:1479:9,1082:1085:1593:1996:19,2497:22101:5104:12




149

116:3118:20120:9122:13,17125:9

times 24:22title112:22,23

today 4:125:2 6:186:23 31:931:2275:1877:982:1483:21102:9104:5106:14114:8

told 7:1346:2263:1670:2 73:2106:15

Tom 109:18top 37:1841:964:2068:2189:2493:1299:22100:1,16

topics 6:176:2113:20

total 65:2389:1695:2,18

totally17:5

touch 34:23123:2

touched97:2

123:17track 25:1842:1950:976:11,2195:19106:24118:12119:5

tracking33:5

training53:999:17

transaction24:8,925:1290:1694:3,597:3,13100:9

transact...22:799:12,16

transcript124:2125:5126:2,3

TRANSCRI...126:6

transfer58:2359:7,1760:6,9,1260:1461:2362:7,1362:1972:11,21120:12

transferred58:17,2059:1560:1869:7 70:473:3

88:22123:12

transmitted23:6 67:1

transmit...89:4

transported89:2

travel16:21

trees 99:3trouble55:8

true 8:523:2024:2144:6 48:262:1116:21125:7126:3

trustee94:24

Trustees93:13

truth 125:4try 35:374:11107:7

trying 7:612:814:2220:723:2132:643:2147:20,2153:6,9,1453:1557:371:2472:580:2381:1483:10,1292:11,21

94:2103:8104:13

turn 99:24two 7:168:1313:1019:6 27:734:2336:1238:2148:470:2473:1178:2279:12,1583:6 84:484:5,6,790:8,991:5 93:596:18106:7108:17111:16121:18

type 15:725:1128:1829:3 32:843:649:2351:2053:2389:1

typed 51:1451:19,2051:22

types 15:115:3109:7

typewriting125:6

typical76:677:16118:24,24

typically52:1486:2494:24

UU.S.A 8:38:10 9:1012:1817:1435:1536:840:2158:1860:7,2370:472:2273:1375:1077:12103:2

umbrella8:16,2410:4

unaware107:19

underneath8:16,2410:4,12

understand8:18,2012:817:13,2119:2020:723:2145:5,559:2183:1294:2 96:598:3

understa...53:22

understood16:3,5

unduly

103:15104:12105:5

United 1:11:10

University14:1

unusual14:21

use 17:1918:2,3,1292:899:18101:4120:3

uses 17:5usually8:1119:2163:19

Vvacant 88:788:8,1688:17,23

vacated86:14,1687:6,13

vague 11:2217:2021:2114:15

valid 47:647:7,8101:11

value 54:20various18:13118:6

vault 50:851:781:2482:2

Vecchio48:1

vendor 89:6




150

verified106:18

verify88:16116:10,21

version26:23

vice 28:4,728:13,1828:19,2028:21,2131:255:11,1456:2357:2,6

visible86:1687:11

visual86:15

VP 110:20

WW 2:3W-H-I-T-...29:15

waiting98:1

walk 119:4want 9:814:6 24:224:226:2127:15,1534:14,1734:18,1936:1837:1242:11,1443:2049:1655:5 60:163:8,1464:1287:6 91:296:6

97:2099:2,2,8103:24104:16109:11112:13114:9118:10119:4

wanted23:1130:2434:961:1769:21

wants 25:9wasn't85:1488:16104:6123:13

watch 35:11way 14:924:426:2437:1246:15,1872:6 84:884:2386:8 87:787:8103:6114:8117:4,18

ways 36:13we're 19:1926:13,1439:2140:342:2147:1,2,347:14,1774:182:11,2484:1288:20

97:2498:1112:1117:17119:3

we've 119:4website110:3

week 56:4weeks 16:7Wendy 1:124:1 125:1125:16

went 16:736:18,2269:1176:2477:1588:596:20100:4101:5106:13

weren't26:21

Wheaton 4:3WHEREOF125:13

Whiteley29:1383:5 93:9

wholly 19:7withdraw69:22

witness 1:93:2 4:74:14 5:206:1411:2320:2221:336:1146:1255:18,2356:657:22

65:2267:1272:1890:897:12107:8,19108:4109:17,21110:19111:2,16112:12114:16115:23117:8,16118:1119:7120:1,7121:17,21125:3,3125:13

wondering21:1778:379:1480:15

word 51:2093:2

work 13:114:2415:1125:1057:2463:1865:20109:10112:20120:21122:5

worked14:1215:9 32:532:556:1958:2109:14111:11

working14:18,2350:1278:15

works 58:1109:18

Worth 14:12wouldn't32:2 51:555:1460:2167:1272:1285:13

write 12:17writes 12:4writing87:17

written18:8,934:10

wrong 8:1941:1972:1484:20

XX 3:1,744:4,6

XLS 27:2103:20

Yyeah 25:2127:2131:1346:2449:1857:559:2481:6 88:590:2391:1293:1694:2199:23

100:3110:11113:19

year 14:1120:1656:459:2372:9113:6,23114:2,7

years 98:11111:17113:10121:18

yellow 34:184:14,16

ZZurich18:2030:22115:22,24116:9123:19

007 91:2084-0032571:12125:2,16

11 3:8 5:85:13 69:3103:12

1-31-0790:2291:14

1-31-200790:7,17

10 3:1382:17,1882:2083:4,2086:10,1187:9




151

89:14,2398:23101:21103:3105:22106:4

10-17 91:1410-17-1190:17

10:00 1:810:05 4:4108 3:411 1:7 3:134:4 44:645:1590:2,491:6,1391:13103:20105:21126:2

11th 105:1412 3:1437:1791:6,8,1391:1498:24102:19,19103:21

12-18-201189:11

12-21-0896:17,21

12-23-0896:21

12-30-2011100:4

12-356901:4

120 2:3122 3:512th 105:1413 1:5 60:193:2394:9,1694:19

13th 75:1014 44:415 26:215-day25:19

150 1:14,2116 26:917-1 37:171710508642:20

1771 2:317th 81:161993 13:241999 121:171st 59:19

22 3:9 37:1937:20,2138:2,743:8,2447:551:1052:6,853:1054:870:13103:12

2-14-200599:17

2,000 12:1020 37:769:11

2000 14:1014:2315:5,6,1456:1866:5

2007 14:1115:13,1580:15

2008 14:1215:10,1215:13,2033:1,1233:16

48:1649:350:1975:596:22117:21

2010 81:16100:19111:4116:6120:13

2011 37:766:569:1786:8122:17

2012 30:1534:250:2059:18,2359:2460:2,562:1118:23

2013 41:1041:1658:11,1258:13,2459:1660:1269:1175:1079:6,1379:13

2014 1:74:4125:13126:2,21

20th 60:1229 60:122nd 68:1868:20,21

33 3:9 37:1840:1,9,11

40:1641:10,2142:1154:1755:2 58:858:11,1258:13,2468:1679:5103:12,13103:15

3-13 79:123-4 34:23,530.3596:8

30 112:1630(b)(6)1:6 4:96:8,11

31st 61:2462:8 69:872:1273:1

3360 115:2335 96:1735690 37:1736 96:173684.4696:19

38 3:938,00089:20

3rd 68:2072:8

44 3:4,1042:8,1142:14,1742:2343:247:1370:7,779:2,7103:12,19103:21

108:13,17109:2122:19

40 3:940,00089:24

40,44589:12

410 84:1343 3:1047,00089:21

4th 16:18

55 3:8,1048:1649:3 61:161:5,2169:779:13103:12

5-3 41:155-3-200378:15

5-3-201342:19

53 87:1954 89:95th 16:1416:1659:15125:13

66 3:1162:2463:2,7103:13

6-4-201386:3

600 4:36000 13:913:11,18123:10

60187 4:4

60523 1:2160563 2:461 3:10628243 80:463 3:11

77 3:11 74:474:6,1075:3

7-17-0794:9

7195 4:2313:6,1213:16,18115:5123:10

7368.9296:18

74 3:11,123:12

75024 4:23752.5080:14

88 3:1274:1975:6 77:577:7,15

8-1/2 44:444:6

8-9 74:2183 3:13

99 3:1274:1975:977:1178:686:1187:9108:14,17109:2

9-3 75:5




152

90 3:13900 1:14,204:5

91 3:14


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D


Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 9824 2 EHaynie@perkin, coie. om Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992 GRichard @perkLn coie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Tel phone: 503.727.2000 Fac jmiJe: 503.727.2222

Attorneys for Plaintiff LNV Corporation

UNITED STATES DI TRICT COURT

DISTRlCT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LNV ORPORATION, a Nevada corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANlAM,

Defendant.

Ca e o. 3: 14-cv-01836-MO

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE CONNER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORS~ARYJUDGMENT

1- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S Perk ins Coie u.r• LEGALI26 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4 11 478.1

1120 N. W. Couch treet, Tenth Floor PorLiand, OR 97209-4 12

Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 54 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 7Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 60 Filed 08/03/15 of 253 PageID 2882

I, Michelle Conner, declare as follows:

1. I am the Senior Vice President of MGC Mortgage, Inc. ("MGC"). MGC is the

loan servicer for LNV Corporation ("LNV"), which is the plaintiff in this lawsuit. LNV and

MGC are affiliated entities with common ownership. I am authorized by LNV and MGC to

make this Declaration and have primary responsibility for the administration of the residential

loan that is the subject of this judicial foreclosure action.

2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter based upon my

personal experience, knowledge of the history of the loan described herein, and my review of

pertinent documents, including the various loan documents that are attached as exhibits hereto.

3. MGC is a business. I am personally familiar with the asset management practices

and procedures of MGC with regard to the servicing of mortgage loans, including record keeping

as it pertains to custody of notes, mortgages, trust deeds, and other loan documents with respect

to mortgage loans held by entities for whom MGC serves as servicer, including for LNV. MGC

services mortgage loan accounts in the regular course of its business and makes in the regular

course of its business records of the acts, transactions, custody of loan documents, events, and

occurrences regarding and pertaining to the mortgage loans it services. In addition, MGC in

servicing mortgage loan accounts in the regular course of its business utilizes records prepared

by other agents of the holder of the loan documents, such as the custodian of certain loan

documents and prior servicers or holders. Records of such acts, transactions, custody of

documents, events, and occurrences are made at the time of the acts, transactions, events, and

occurrences or within a reasonably prompt time thereafter.

4. All of the exhibits that are attached hereto are maintained by MGC as business

records in accordance with the procedures set forth in the preceding paragraph, in the ordinary

course of business, or are operative legal documents setting forth the relationship between LNV

as note holder and defendant Denise Subramaniam ("Defendant") as borrower. I am also

2- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGALI264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch SLreel, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222


familiar with the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint, which I understand to be

the operative complaint in this judicial foreclosure action.

5. I submit this Declaration in support of LNV's motion for summary judgment on

its judicial foreclosure claim. LNV seeks to foreclose a trust deed on the real property known as

Lot 4, Block 2, Devonshire, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, more commonly

known as 13865 SW Walker Road, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (the "Property"). Defendant is the

grantor of the trust deed and is the borrower on a note that is secured by the trust deed.

A. The Loan to Defendant Subramaniam

6. On or about February 10, 2004, People's Choice Home Loan, Inc. ("People's

Choice") loaned Defendant $176,000.00 (the "Loan").

7. The Loan is evidenced by the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $176,000.00,

dated February 10, 2004 and signed by Defendant (the "Note"). Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true

and correct copy of the Note and the subsequent allonges to the Note. The original lender on the

Note is People's Choice, and the borrower is Defendant.

8. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Deed of Trust, dated

February 10, 2004, signed by Defendant, and recorded in Washington County, Oregon on

March 1, 2004 as Instrument Number 2004-019937 (the "Trust Deed"). The Trust Deed secures,

among other things, Defendant's repayment of the Note. As the trustor of the Trust Deed,

Defendant granted and conveyed, in trust, the power of sale of the Property. The Trust Deed

provides that People's Choice is the beneficiary.

B. Transfer of the Note and Trust Deed to Plaintiff

9. People's Choice transferred the Note to Residential Funding Company, LLC

("RFC") by endorsing the Note to the order of RFC in an allonge and delivering the Note and

allonge to RFC. Ex. 1, p. 6. RFC, in turn, transferred the Note to LNV by endorsing it to the

order of LNV in an allonge and delivering the Note and allonges to LNV. Ex. 1, p. 7. Through

the allonges, LNV became the holder of the Note.

3- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGALI264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222


10. On or about March 10, 2008, RFC assigned its beneficial interest in the Trust

Deed to LNV. A true and correct copy of the Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust executed

by RFC ("Trust Assignment") and the Oregon State Recorder's cover sheet for the recordation

thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Trust Assignment was recorded in the official

records of Washington County, Oregon on August 27, 2008 as Instrument Number 2008-073972.

Under the Trust Assignment, LNV is the current beneficiary of the Trust Deed.

C. Defendant's Default on the Note and Trust Deed

11. Under the Note, Defendant was required to make monthly payments on the first

day of each month beginning on April 1, 2004. Ex. 1, p. 1. The failure to pay the full amount of

each monthly payment by the due date constituted a default. Ex. 1, p. 3. Furthermore,

Defendant was obligated to pay when due her debt on the Note under Section 1 of the Trust

Deed. Ex. 2, p. 3. The failure to make full and timely payments on the Note was a breach of the

Trust Deed and a default thereon. Ex. 2, p. 13.

12. Both the Note and Trust Deed provide that the lender may accelerate the

payments on the Note in the event of default by Defendant and require immediate payment in

full of all sums owed under the Note that are secured by the Trust Deed. Ex. 1, p. 3; Ex. 2, p. 13.

13. Defendant did not pay the full amount of the monthly payment due on April 1,

2007. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a document generated from MGC's

computer systems, showing the status and partial history of the Loan ("Loan Status Report").

The Loan Status Report shows that, as of June 15, 2015, the total amount to pay the Loan in full

will be $324,557.19 and that the current unpaid principal balance is $171,450.72. Ex. 4, p. 1.

14. In December 2010, MGC mailed a notice of default regarding the Note and Trust

Deed dated December 16, 2010 ("Notice of Default") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of

the Notice of Default is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

15. In or about May 2012, LNV accelerated the principal payments on the Note and

decided to invoke the power of sale under the Trust Deed. On or about May 24, 2012, Northwest

4- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGALl264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP


Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222


Trustee Services, Inc. mailed a notice of foreclosure ("Notice of Foreclosure") and the trustee's

notice of sale of the Property ("Notice of Sale") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of the

Notice of Foreclosure and the Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Foreclosure is attached hereto as

Exhibit 6. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Sale and the Affidavit of Mailing Trustee's

Notice of Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

16. On or about June 4, 2012, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. mailed a second

Trustee's Notice of Sale ("Second Notice of Sale") to Defendant. A true and correct copy of the

Second Notice of Sale and the Affidavit of Mailing Trustee's Notice of Sale to Occupant is

attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

17. The Second Notice of Sale was also published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

and the Oregon Legal Journal on or about June 28, 2012, July 5, 2012, July 12, 2012, and

July 19, 2012, as evidenced by the affidavits of publication from Marc Caplan and Jody Vinson.

True and correct copies of their affidavits are attached hereto as Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively.

18. In addition, notice of the trustee's sale was posted on the Property, as evidenced

by the affidavit from Nicolas Ross. A true and correct copy of his affidavit is attached hereto as

Exhibit 11.

19. The defaults under the Note remain uncured to date. As of the date of this

Declaration, Defendant owes under the Note the sum of $324,557.19 as of June 15, 2015

(assuming no payment made between the date of this Declaration and June 15, 2015), consisting

of principal in the amount of $171,450.72, interest at the rate of 10.625% through June 15, 2015

of $109,768.04, escrow/impound overdraft of $40,211.75, unpaid late charges of $2,687.43, a

recording/assignment fee of $46.00, and a property inspection fee of $393.25. Ex. 4, p. 1.

D. LNV is exempt from the Oregon Foreclosure A voidance Program

20. Pursuant to the Oregon Foreclosure A voidance Program, LNV submitted its

Beneficiary Exemption Affidavit ("Beneficiary Exemption"), as evidenced by the true and

correct copy of the Beneficiary Exemption attached hereto as Exhibit 12.

5- CONNER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL1264MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11478.1

Perkins Coie LLP

I 120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4 I 28

Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222


2l. LNV caused Lhe Foreclosure Avoidance Measure Notice to be served on

Defendant when she was served with the summons, Complaint, and Amended Complaint.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the Foreclosure A voidance Measure

Notice.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June F. 20l5. mL~ ~ Michelle Conner Senior Vice President MGC Mortgage, Inc.

6- CONNER DECLARATrON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S Pea·kins Coie LLI' LEGALI 264MOTTON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11478.1


Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I cerLify that I wil l serve the foregoing DECLAUATION OF MICHELLE CONNER

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUlVlMARY JUDGMENT on Defendant,

Denise Subramaniam at 13865 SW Walker Rd., Beaverton, OR 97005 by depositing a copy in

Lhe U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope with the United States Postal Service at

Portland, Oregon on June 8, 2015.

DATED: June 8, 2015 Is/ Gabrielle D. Richards Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. ll4992 GRichards@ perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff LNV Corporation

Perkins Coie I, Lf'

PAGE 1- CERTJFICATE OF SERVICE LEGAL 1264114

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Ponland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000 78.1 Fax: 503.727.2222


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E


Name Bret Joseph Maloney

Age 42

Date of Birth 10/5/1971

Phone Number 972-355-1431

Additional Phone Numbers 972-355-4596, 817-571-9344

Most Recent Address 1208 Maddy Ln, Flower Mound, TX 75028-4318

Criminal Records 2 records found

Aliases/Name Variations Bret J Maloney, Bret Maloney, Brett Maloney

Address City, State, Zip Phone Added Updated

1208 Maddy Ln Flower Mound, TX 75028-4318 972-355-1431 6/2005 8/2013

1405 Candlelight Cv Flower Mound, TX 75028-8250 972-355-4596 12/2000 6/2002

220 W Avenue K Lovington, NM 88260-5508 972-355-4596 7/2000 7/2000

220 E Avenue K Lovington, NM 88260-5611 7/2000 7/2000

1300 Josephine Dr, Apt 501

Alice, TX 78332-3935 972-355-4596 9/1999 3/2000

6350 Meadowvista Dr, Apt

1417

Corpus Christi, TX 78414-2630 972-355-4596 9/1991 3/1999

2807 Pearl St, Apt 342 Nacogdoches, TX 75965-3374 9/1991 9/1991

2121 Steeplewood Dr Grapevine, TX 76051-6697 9/1991 9/1991

5801 Hollister St, Apt 1908 Houston, TX 77040-5782 972-355-4596

Background ReportBret Joseph Maloney

Email:

b****@hotmail.com

Bret Maloney

1208 Maddy Lane

Flower Mound, TX 75028

k****@aol.com

Bret Maloney

1405 Candlelight Cv Cv

Flower Mound, TX 75028

16 addresses were found

Report Expiration

May 04, 2014


3809 Brandywine Dr, Apt

407

Bedford, TX 76021-5254 972-355-4596

2571 Hall Johnson Rd, Apt

813

Grapevine, TX 76051-7198 817-571-9344

1221 Reservoir Rd, Apt 257

Little Rock, AR 72227-5788

5271 Hall Johnson Rd, Apt

813

Grapevine, TX 76051

3412 Durst St Nacogdoches, TX 75964-5604

1119 Woodbine St Nacogdoches, TX 75964-3441 xxx-569-2422

2571 Johnson Rd Southlake, TX 76092-5707 xxx-569-2422

Name: Brett Maloney

Job Title: Loan Trader

Company Name: Beal Bank, S.S.B.

Address: 6000 Legacy Dr

Plano, TX 75024-3601

USA

Phone: 469-467-5000

Email Addresses: b****@bealservice.com

Social Network Profiles

Social Network search results include Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter profiles. Social networks require that you give us

permission to run a Social Network search. No one in your network will be notified and your account information is not added to

our search database.

No social network profiles were found

Work Information

Work Information listings are compiled from databases containing over 75 million professional contacts.

1 potential work result was found

Possible Relatives

Possible relatives are people who are likely relatives of Bret Joseph Maloney based on matching surname and shared addresses.

Please note that this will not include all relatives.


5 possible relatives were found

Name Age Address

Dallas Jay Maloney 393508 Beekman Dr

Fort Worth, TX 76244-5128

Danny J Maloney 66

1405 Candlelight Cv

Apt 813

Flower Mound, TX 75028-8250

Georgia L Maloney 661405 Candlelight Cv


Autumn Renee Moore 431208 Maddy Ln


Scott M Maloney 45901 Laws Ct

Valley Park, MO 63088-1167

Neighbors

Neighbors are people who, based on known addresses, currently live or have lived near Bret Joseph Maloney’s current and

previous addresses.

17 neighbors were found

Name Age Address

Joseph Alan Davis 341212 Maddy Ln


Keli A Davis 331212 Maddy Ln


James M Gooden Jr 771200 Maddy Ln


Amber L Chittenden 351225 Maddy Ln


Dominic R Vargas 371225 Maddy Ln


Amy G Dennis 411404 Candlelight Cv


Dana M Clark 471408 Candlelight Cv


Trent Wayne Clark 481408 Candlelight Cv


Diane E Whitcomb 531401 Candlelight Cv


Craig C Whitcomb 581401 Candlelight Cv


Grace Villono

213 W Avenue K

Apt 11

Lovington, NM 88260-5500

Casey J Wilbanks 26

211 W Avenue K

Apt 9




Birthdate 10/1971

Offense: Not Specified

Offense Date: 5/28/1998

Location Texas

Court Criminal Court

Case Number 0695938

Offender ID TB16915363705643521100695938


Birthdate 10/1971

Location Texas

Court Criminal Court

Case Number 0695938000

Offender ID TB16915363705643521100695938000

Gabriel C Elmore 55301 W Avenue K


Esperanza C Elmore 55301 W Avenue K


Esperanza Elmore301 W Avenue K


Ann Cambanis 80

1300 Josephine Dr

Apt 406

Alice, TX 78332-3934

Henor Rojas

1300 Josephine Dr

Apt 403

Alice, TX 78332-3933

Criminal Records

Motor Accidents

Motor Accidents records are known automobile accidents and the associated individuals.

A comprehensive search of motor accidents was run and Bret Joseph Maloney was not associated with any motor accidents.

No motor accidents were found

Employment History

No employment history was found

Business Ownership

Business ownership records are compiled from public filings, commercial records and SEC registrations.


Address: 1208 Maddy Ln


Owner(s): Bret J Maloney

Property Use: Single Family Residential

Assessed Value: $207,069

Build Date: 2005

Land (sq ft.): 5467 SF

Owner Occupied: Yes

Assessment Date: 2013

Address: 1208 Maddy Ln


Owner(s): Bret J Maloney

Previous Owner(s): Cedar Creek Development Llc

Deed Type: Vendor's Lien

Property Use: Planned Unit Development

Assessed Value: N/A

Loan Amount: $163,888

Lender: First Horizon Home Loan Corp

Loan Term: 6/22/2005 - 7/1/2035

Financing: Adjustable Rate

Title Company: Fatco

A comprehensive search of business records was run and Bret Joseph Maloney was not listed as an owner of any businesses.

This does not necessarily reflect employment with a company.

No owned businesses found

Property Ownership

Property ownership records are compiled from nationwide real property records commonly found with the county tax assessor.

2 properties were found

Bankruptcies

Bankruptcy is the declared inability to pay creditors. Bankruptcies records are compiled from local, state, and federal courts to

include Chapter 7, 11, and 13 bankruptcies. Please note that these records cannot be used to determine an individual’s eligibility

for credit, insurance, employment or other purposes under the Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA). Learn more about FCRA

compliance.

A comprehensive search of bankruptcies was run and Bret Joseph Maloney is not listed as having declared bankruptcy. Please

note that filings that have yet to be adjudicated may not appear.

No bankruptcies were found

Judgments + Liens


psp.aspx?_act=fcra

A court-ordered lien is a legal claim issued to secure payment when someone fails to pay state and/or federal taxes. Depending

on the jurisdiction, judgments are generally found within the lower courts often referred to as Small Claims and Municipal Courts.

Please note that these records cannot be used to determine an individual’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment or other

purposes under the Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA). Learn more about FCRA compliance.

A comprehensive search of judgments and liens was run and Bret Joseph Maloney was not listed as a debtor or defendant in

either database.

No judgments or liens were found

Professional Licenses

No professional licenses were found

Registered Aircrafts

No aircrafts were found

Registered Watercrafts

No watercrafts were found

FAA Certification

No FAA certifications were found

UCC Filings

No UCC filings were found


psp.aspx?_act=fcra

Case 3:12-cv-00468 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 80


Case 1:08-bk-13846 Doc 91-1 Filed 08/21/14 Entered 08/21/14 19:08:43 Desc Affidavit Affidavit of Bret Maloney and Exhibits A through H Page 1 of 39


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F


RE: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richards, Gabrielle D. (Gabby) (Perkins Coie) <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM Subject: RE: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam To: "[email protected]" < ----stephans @ord.uscourts.gov> Cc: "[email protected]" [email protected]

Ms. Stephens,

By way of update, Mr. Maloney is no longer an employee of MGC Mortgage, as of this morning.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle D. Richards | Perkins Coie LLP D. +1.503.727.2255 F. +1.503.346.2255

From: Richards, Gabrielle D. (Gabby) (Perkins Coie) Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam

Ms. Stephens,

After the conclusion of the status conference this morning, I was informed that Bret Maloney is a current employee of MGC Mortgage, a loan servicer for LNV Corporation. As such, it would be inappropriate for Ms. Subramaniam to contact him directly. If Ms. Subramaniam wishes to depose Mr. Maloney, it would be appropriate for her to contact me to make the necessary arrangements.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle D. Richards | Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 D. +1.503.727.2255 F. +1.503.346.2255 E. [email protected]

Note: Email addresses have been protected to prevent spamming because these communications are made public by nature of their inclusion in public court recorders. Otherwise this is a true and accurate copy of the email communications.


mailto:[email protected]

tel:%2B1.503.727.2255

tel:%2B1.503.346.2255



tel:%2B1.503.727.2255

tel:%2B1.503.346.2255


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G


From 1993 instrument

From 1993

From 1994

From 2000

From 2000


From 2000

From 2000

From 2000


Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H


http://www.gavelbangers.com/judges/texas/trial-level/tillery/dale

Hon. Dale B. Tillery

Ratings

#1 clerk or other courthouse employee

Sunday, June 2, 2013 - 02:45

He is arrogant and yells and is never present for work. He needs to be voted out. He gives good rulings

only to attorneys that have given money and lunches and taken him put for drinks. This is one man who

forgot who he works for, that is us the people. Help get him removed. Vote against him in the primary and

vote for, the democrats running against him.


http://www.gavelbangers.com/judges/texas/trial-level/tillery/dale

Denise

Typewritten Text

JoAnn Breitling Affidavit Exhibit B - page 1

http://pushjunction.com/press_releases/district-judge-dale-tillery-is-investigated-for-six-broad-categories-of-

election-law-violation

DISTRICT JUDGE DALE TILLERY IS INVESTIGATED FOR

SIX BROAD CATEGORIES OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATION

Texas Ethics Advisory Board

HUNTSVILLE, TX, 7 Jul 2012

In an official response to a Sworn Complaint, the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) has notified 134th

District Court Judge Dale Tillery (D-Garland, TX) he is being investigated for multiple campaign finance

violations. (See the attached TEC investigation letter and sworn complaint.)

The Sworn Complaint alleges Tillery, over the past two years “accepted a labor union contribution, made

unlawful contributions to a candidate/officeholder and political committees, converted campaign funds to

personal use, failed to fully disclose contributors' principal occupations, job titles, and employers/law

firms, failed to fully disclose the sources of political contributions, failed to fully disclose the recipients

and purposes of political expenditures, and filed several otherwise incomplete reports, with contribution

and loan balances indicating undisclosed campaign contributions and/or expenditures.”

The complaint also notes Tillery shows a serious contribution balance discrepancy of $13,064.33.

Mr. Alvin Schleiske, a well-known Woodlands TEA party supporter, filed the complaint after noticing

Judge Tillery‟s alleged campaign finance violations.

Texas Election Code provides that if Tillery received a contribution from a labor union, that is a third

degree felony offense. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the contribution amount for

making illegal contributions out of his campaign funds. If Tillery converted political contributions to

personal use, he would be civilly liable to the State for the converted amount plus reasonable court costs.

Because of their serious nature, the TEC will process the allegations against Tillery as Category 2

violations. He must formally respond to the TEC by July 19, or face a separate violation and civil penalty.

Officeholders with more serious allegations are allowed more time to respond to the TEC.

Tillery signed his campaign finance reports under the penalty of perjury, and bears the responsibility for

checking the report accuracy and fully disclosing the information required by state law.

Making a false, material, perjurious statement during or in connection with an official Texas Ethics

Commission proceeding constitutes aggravated perjury, a felony of the third degree.

Mr. Schleiske sent the Sworn Complaint to the Texas Ethics Advisory Board (TEAB) for further review.

In a statement to the TEAB about the Tillery complaint, Mr. Schleiske wrote, “Judge Tillery has

flagrantly broken the law he is bound by the Texas Constitution to uphold. He is a judge. I find it

astonishing he would be so „in your face‟ with his antics……and where did that $13,000 go?” The Texas

Ethics Advisory Board is a peer reviewer and consultant regarding Campaign Finance Reports.

Schleiske and the TEAB are members of a large group of citizen-taxpayers in suburban Houston and

surrounding counties who conduct statewide audits of progressive candidates, officeholders and political

action committees who have long been contributing to the runaway growth of government and the loss of

constitutional authority.


http://pushjunction.com/press_releases/district-judge-dale-tillery-is-investigated-for-six-broad-categories-of-election-law-violation

http://pushjunction.com/press_releases/district-judge-dale-tillery-is-investigated-for-six-broad-categories-of-election-law-violation

Denise

Typewritten Text


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110914-dallas-county-judges-desire-to-

use-civilian-bailiff-prompts-concerns-from-other-judges.ece

Dallas County judge’s desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other

judges Home > News > Community News > Dallas > Dallas Headlines

Dallas County judge’s desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other

judges

By KEVIN KRAUSE

Staff Writer

[email protected]

Published: 14 September 2011 10:10 PM - Updated: 14 September 2011 10:33 PM

A Dallas County family court judge‟s decision to use a civilian bailiff instead of a sheriff‟s deputy has led

to a heated debate about the balance between government efficiencies and courtroom safety.

Judge Lynn Cherry, of the 301st Family District Court, is asking county commissioners to allow for a

full-time civil court clerk to be the bailiff in her court instead of the part-time sheriff‟s deputy she uses.

The other courts are staffed with sheriff‟s bailiffs, who are sworn peace officers.

Cherry said her clerk is a retired Highland Park police officer and reserve police officer with extensive

law enforcement and military experience. He is also her current bailiff but will resign from the Sheriff‟s

Department to become a civilian clerk, she said.

Cherry wants him to be allowed to continue carrying a firearm in court. But county officials say the

district attorney‟s office will have to look into that since only county law enforcement officers are

authorized to carry firearms inside county courthouses.

The proposed change, which is scheduled for a vote next week, will save the county $11,575 per year, the

county budget office said. Entry-level deputy bailiffs are paid $58,439 annually while civilians are paid

$46,864, county officials said.

But Cherry said the real benefit will be in having the same bailiff in her court at all times. That hasn‟t

happened, she said, since Sheriff Lupe Valdez replaced full-time bailiffs in the George Allen civil

courthouse with part-timers in January to try to save money and improve efficiency. Since the change,

part-time bailiffs often have had to be replaced in the middle of court proceedings, creating disruptions,

Cherry said.

Cherry said her bailiff sometimes has to be replaced in the middle of a trial because he can‟t work more

than 38 hours a week.

She said she wants a bailiff whom she knows and understands. She called the current system “very

problematic and unsafe.”

County Budget Director Ryan Brown said Tuesday that no one is asking the rest of the judges to use

civilian bailiffs. “It‟s the judges‟ choice,” he said.

But Judge Denise Garcia, of the 303rd Family District Court, told commissioners recently that Cherry did

not inform the other family court judges of her proposal and that they oppose it.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110914-dallas-county-judges-desire-to-use-civilian-bailiff-prompts-concerns-from-other-judges.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110914-dallas-county-judges-desire-to-use-civilian-bailiff-prompts-concerns-from-other-judges.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/


Denise

Typewritten Text


Once aggressors get into the area behind a courtroom, they can gain access to the other courts, Garcia

said. “We‟re all tied together,” she said.

Garcia told commissioners that a civilian bailiff cannot make arrests or process prisoners. She said that

family courts hear many volatile cases and that reducing security in one court “renders all of us unsafe.”

She also questioned the estimated savings from the move.

Commissioner John Wiley Price praised Cherry for her decision. Price has supported the idea of civilian

bailiffs since the beginning of the year.

“She wants an opportunity to try. Let her try,” Price said recently.

In January, Dale Tillery, the new judge of the 134th Civil District Court, offered to use a civilian bailiff in

a pilot program to save about $21,000 a year.

A group of judges told commissioners at the time that they opposed the change, saying “citizen safety is

paramount” in the courts.

The judges are still expressing opposition to civilian bailiffs.

Judge Martin Lowy, a civil court judge, told commissioners during a recent meeting that Cherry has the

right to run her court as she sees fit but that court bailiffs should operate as a team. He said he hasn‟t been

shown that Tillery‟s new bailiff is saving money.

“We don‟t want to go in this direction, and we don‟t think it‟s saving money,” said Lowy, the local

administrative judge who speaks for all the judges and handles administrative duties such as

implementing rules.

County Judge Clay Jenkins said it‟s important that the judges “come together” and communicate about

the matter even if they do not agree. He urged them to go to lunch together to work it out.

Commissioner Elba Garcia said she supports the move.

Sheriff Lupe Valdez has also voiced some concern about Cherry‟s decision. Valdez has told

commissioners that civilians don‟t have direct communication with her department and that she can‟t

respond as quickly to courtroom incidents.

Valdez said last week she wouldn‟t try to block Cherry‟s move as long as the judge agreed to sign a

liability waiver. Cherry and the sheriff have already signed an agreement, county officials say.


Denise

Typewritten Text


http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery

Dale B. Tillery Past position: Partner, Edwards & Tillery

Dale B. Tillery is a judge of the 134th District Court in Texas. He was elected in 2010 and his current term expires

in 2014.

2014

See also: Texas judicial elections, 2014

Tillery is running for re-election to the 134th District Court.

Primary: He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on March 4, 2014.

General: He will be unopposed in the general election on November 4, 2014.[1][2]

2010

Tillery defeated David D. Kelton in a runoff election on April 13, 2010 receiving 67.6% of the vote.[3]

Tillery next defeated James M. Stanton in the general election, winning 50.53% of the vote.[4]

See also: Texas district court judicial elections, 2010

Career

Prior to joining the bench, Tillery gained experience as a partner at the law firm of Edwards & Tillery and

president of Tillery & Tillery. He also served as an elected representative in the Texas House of

Representatives from 1994 through 2000.[6]

Awards and associations

Dale Tillery has been certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Trial Law and

Personal Injury Law and has been admitted to practice law by the Texas Supreme Court, United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Texas.[6]


http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_District_134

http://judgepedia.org/Texas

http://judgepedia.org/C2014

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_judicial_elections,_2014

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_District_134

http://judgepedia.org/Democratic

http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery#cite_note-candidates-1



http://judgepedia.org/David_D._Kelton

http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery#cite_note-3

http://judgepedia.org/James_M._Stanton

http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery#cite_note-4

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_district_court_judicial_elections,_2010

http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery#cite_note-bio-6

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_Supreme_Court

http://judgepedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit



http://judgepedia.org/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Texas



http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery#cite_note-bio-6

http://judgepedia.org/Texas_judicial_elections,_2014

Denise

Typewritten Text


http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/campaign-finance/filer/00026547-dale-b-tillery/


http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/campaign-finance/filer/00026547-dale-b-tillery/

Denise

Typewritten Text



Denise

Typewritten Text


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-25/highland-capital-wins-texas-court-ruling-ending-investors-suit

Bloomberg News

Highland Capital Wins Texas Case Ruling Ending Investor Suit (1) By Andrew Harris and Thomas Korosec May 25, 2013

Highland Capital Management LP won a Texas court ruling ending a four-year-old lawsuit filed by investors

claiming they were misled about the health of two hedge funds that were later closed.

Dallas County Judge Dale Tillery granted Highland‟s motion in a ruling earlier this week, following

arguments April 19.

“Having reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and after conducting a hearing on the matter, the

court is of the opinion that defendants‟ motion should be granted,” the judge said in a two-page ruling.

Story: Litigation-Finance Firm Survives Chevron Debacle, Learns Lessons, and Thrives

LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC and other investor plaintiffs claimed in a 2009 complaint that

Dallas-based Highland misled investors by withholding requested information about the rate of

withdrawals before the firm began winding down Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP and Highland

Credit Strategies Fund Ltd.

The plaintiffs alleged in court papers their redemption percentage of the funds‟ liquidated value was

“paltry.” As of June 2008, LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund‟s stake in Highland Credit Strategies Fund

LP had been valued at more than $40 million, according to the complaint. Six other plaintiffs held lesser-

valued stakes in the funds.

“Our case is based on misconduct,” Geoffrey Jarvis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Tillery at the April

hearing. “They lied to us.” The plaintiff investors said they would have gotten out if they‟d known the

true pace of redemptions that totaled $467 million, or 42 percent of one of the funds, in April 2008 alone.

Story: Apple’s Siri Gets Bruised in a Chinese Patent Fight

‘Seriously Flawed’

“This is a seriously flawed case based on things that don‟t exist,” Highland lawyer Michael Aigen said in

court that day, contending there was no evidence of falsity or fraud. Highland personnel had expressed

“vague opinions” about the state of the fund, not specific incorrect information.

Thomas Becker, a spokesman for Highland, declined to comment. Jarvis didn‟t immediately reply to an e-

mail seeking comment after regular business hours.

The case is LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC v. Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP, DC09-08521,

Dallas County, Texas District Court, 134th Judicial District (Dallas).

Story: Highway Guardrails Are Killing Drivers, Says Industry Insider

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at

[email protected]; Tom Korosec in Dallas County Court in Texas at

[email protected].

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at [email protected]

Story: Pom Wins in the Supreme Court. Now it's Pom v. Coke, Round 2


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-25/highland-capital-wins-texas-court-ruling-ending-investors-suit

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-01/litigation-finance-firm-survives-chevron-debacle-learns-lessons-and-thrives

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-10/apples-siri-got-bruised-in-a-chinese-patent-fight

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-19/highway-guardrails-are-killing-drivers-says-industry-insider

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-12/supreme-court-rules-pom-wonderful-can-sue-coke-over-misleading-label

Denise

Typewritten Text


breitlings' motion to vacate tillery's void judgment

Documents