UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERALE DIVISION

NELSON LUACES, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE )

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER, ) NO.:v. )

)DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR )SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST )2005-OPT 4, ASSET-BACKED )CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT 4 and )MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC )REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. )MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and JOHN )DOES 1-500, )

) DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS )

_______________________________________)

VERIFIED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFTO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES

CHAPTER 65; AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

COME NOW the Plaintiff/Petitioner NELSON LUACES, Pro Se and

Defendants DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS

TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-OPT 4

ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT 4 and

1

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. for

Declaratory Relief to Quiet Title to remove clouds on Plaintiff/Petitioner’s

Title, and as grounds therefore would state as follows:

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND LAND

1.

Plaintiff/Petitioner is a citizen of the State of Florida, County of

Broward. Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Title derives his title from the purchase of the

property by Global Services and Consulting LLC and a subsequent

Quitclaim Deed from Global Services and Consulting LLC to Nelson

Luaces. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Plaintiff/Petitioner’s

composite Exhibit “A” is a certified copy of the Certifcate of Sale and

Certificate of Title issued to Global Services and Consulting LLC. Attached

hereto and made a part hereof as Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Exhibit “B” is a

certified copy of the Quitclaim Deed from Global Services and Consulting

LLC to Nelson Luaces, Plaintiff/Petitioner herein.

2.

The subject property is legally described as:

CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 226, BUILDING 38, WESTVIEWCONDOMINIUM NO. 9, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TOTHE DECLARATION THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN OFFICAL RECORD BOOK 10812, PAGE 842, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS

2

OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

and also known as 1120 NW 97th Avenue Unit 226 Pembroke Pines, Florida

33024. Hereinafter, this address and legal description as well as all

improvements thereon shall be known and referred to as Plaintiff/

Petitioners’ Property.

3.

Defendant/Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as

Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT 4, Asset-Backed

Certificates Series 2005-OPT 4 is a securitized Trust, also known as a SPV,

Special Purpose Vehicle and a REMIC, Real Estate Investment Conduit, and

is a citizen of the State of California with an office located at 1761 E. Saint

Andrew Place, Santa Ana, California 92705. Defendant/Respondent

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company does business in Broward County,

Florida.

4.

Defendant/Respondent, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc. (“MERS”), as nominee for , "MERS" maintains an electronic registry

for mortgages. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a

nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the

mortgagee under the Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing

3

under the laws of Delaware, and is a citizen of Delaware and has an address

located at 1901 E. Voorhees Street, Suite C, Danville, IL 61834.

5.

Defendant JOHN DOES 1-500 are the unknown certificate holders

who purchased the asset-backed certificates as unregistered securities in the

Soundview Home Loan Trust Series OPT-4. The names and identities of

these Defendants/Respondents are unknown to Plaintiff/Petitioner.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1332 for reasons set forth below.

7.

Plaintiff/Petitioners’ property is located in Broward County, Florida,

and the territorial boundaries of this District Court embrace this County.

Petitioners are citizens of the State of Florida.

8.

Defendants/Respondents are citizens of the States of California and

Delaware. There is complete diversity of citizenship between

Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendants/Respondents.

9.

4

Petitioners seek to quiet title to Petitioners’ property. The amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

10.

This is an in rem proceeding pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 65,

directed against Petitioners’ property situated within the boundaries of

Broward County, Florida. By virtue of a Note and Mortgage dated

September 17, 2005 and filed for record October 7, 2005, recorded in OR

Book 40673 Pages 558-568 of the Public Records of Broward County,

Florida, Patricia A. Brydges and Marcelene Fox purchased the subject

property and gave a Note and Mortgage in favor of H&R Block Mortgage

Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation. Allegedly affixed to the Note

were two (2) allonges, one to Option One Mortgage Corporation, a

California Corporation, and another to signed in blank by Option One

Mortgage Corporation. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as

Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Exhibit “C” is a copy of the subject Note, allonges and

Mortgage. Neither the Note nor either of the allonges list

Defendant/Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust as a party and the

Mortgage does not list Defendant/Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust

as a party. Plaintiff/Petitioner challenges the legal standing of

5

Defendants/Respondents to foreclose on the subject property or to sell the

property at a foreclosure sale.

11.

Notwithstanding that Deutsche Bank was not listed as a part on either

the Note, allonges or Mortgage and had no legal standing to collect the note

or foreclose the mortgage, Defendant/Respondent Deutsche Bank initiated a

foreclosure against the subject property and obtained a Final Judgment of

Foreclosure on or about December 5, 2013. Attached hereto and made a part

hereof is a certified copy of the Final Judgment of Foreclosure as

Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Exhibit “D”.

12.

The property was subsequently sold pursuant to a foreclosure sale by

Westview Condo Association No. Nine, Inc. to Global Services &

Consulting, LLC on February 22, 2013. See Plaintiff/Petitioner’s composite

Exhibit A. A certificate of Title was issued to Global Services &

Consulting, LLC on March 5, 2013. See Plaintiff/Petitioner’s composite

Exhibit A. Subsequently, the property was transferred by Quitclaim Deed

from the purchaser, Global Services & Consulting, LLC to

Plaintiff/Petitioner Nelson Luaces. See Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Exhibit B.

13.

6

Rightful title in and to the subject property is in Plaintiff/Petitioner

Nelson Luaces. Although ordinarily Plaintiff/Petitioner would take the

property subject to any valid first mortgage, as Defendants/Respondents

have and had no legal standing to collect the note or to foreclose the

mortgage, any such foreclosure was and is wrongful.

14.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff/Petitioner Nelson Luaces’ purchase of the

subject property, Defendant/Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4 Asset-

Backed Certificates threatens to sell Plaintiff/Petitioner’s property at a

foreclosure sale presently scheduled for February 19, 2014, although said

Defendant/Respondent has never produced any valid or recorded

assignment, or other transfer document or other proof that it owns and holds

the mortgage on the subject property.

15.

Plaintiff/Petitioner challenges the legal standing of Defendants/

Respondents to collect the subject note or foreclose the subject mortgage.

Standing is jurisdictional, is not waived by Plaintiff/Petitioner, and can be

raised at any time. Plaintiff/Petitioner moves for a Preliminary

Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order to restrain and enjoin the sale of the

7

property by Defendants/Respondents on February 19, 2014 pending

resolution of Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Quiet Title claim, as more fully set forth

in Plaintiff/Petitioner’s motion set forth herein below.

FIRST QUIET TITLE CLAIM

16.

Plaintiff/Petitioner re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-15 and incorporate same by reference herein.

17.

Plaintiff/Petitioner challenges the interest held by Respondent and

Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains that the interest of these parties lacks

authenticity in essence.

18.

The true beneficial owners of Plaintiff/Petitioners’ note and mortgage

are investors, each holding a proportional and typically miniscule interest in

Petitioners’ Note and Mortgage. The only parties with something to gain or

lose from the outcome of Petitioners’ loan are those investors. Investors are

exclusively entitled to Petitioners’ payments. Under the terms in the Note,

these investors are the Note Holder, and they alone are entitled to accelerate

payments and initiate foreclosure.

8

19.

Investors, John Does 1-500, are the real parties in interest.

20.

Defendants/Respondents are wrongfully attempting to assert authority

reserved exclusively to the beneficial owner. Defendants/Respondents own

no interest whatsoever in Plaintiff/Petitioners’ lien or note.

Defendants/Respondents do not represent the Investors. Defendants/

Respondents are not entitled to payments. Defendants/Respondents have

nothing to benefit or lose.

21

To pursue foreclosure, Defendants/Respondents must follow the law

dictated by their foundational documents. No party can stand above the law,

not even these Defendants/Respondents.

22.

Accordingly, named Defendants/Respondents acquired nothing from

any recorded assignment. These Defendants/Respondents do not hold the

full beneficial interest or any beneficial interest in Plaintiff/Petitioners’

Property. The parties that do hold this full beneficial interest are investors of

Soundview Home Loan Trust Series 2005-OPT 4. These parties are not

disclosed. In this quiet title action, Petitioners’ seek Declaratory Relief in the

9

form of a ruling stipulating that these Investors are the true beneficial

owners of Petitioners’ title and, before any foreclosure action can be

brought, these Investors must be joined as indispensable parties and their

interests must be recorded at the Broward County Recorder’s Office, like

every other ownership interest in real property.

SECOND QUIET TITLE CLAIM

23.

Plaintiff/Petitioner challenge the interest held by the named

Respondents and the validity of any assignments to the

Defendants/Respondents because the formalities of the Statute of Frauds and

U.C.C. 3-203 were not satisfied.

24.

The exercise of these powers cannot elude the net cast by the Statute

of Frauds. No interest in land can pass without satisfying its formalities.

10

25.

It is an irrefutable fact that these Defendants/Respondents never

signed a writing disposing of its interest in the subject property. The

ownership interest in land is still parked with the last recorded beneficial

owner and unless and until the Statute of Frauds is satisfied, foreclosure

cannot be pursued.

26.

Any assignments are invalid for two reasons. For failing to

accommodate formalities in the Statute of Frauds, these transfers are ruled

invalid because the deterrent attached to the Statute of Frauds declares all

such transfers to be unenforceable. It also fails to transfer the full beneficial

interest for a bearer instrument, thereby violating U.C.C. 3-203(b) and (d).

THIRD QUIET TITLE CLAIM

27.

A cloud on a title has been described as an outstanding claim which

appears to be valid on its face, but can be shown by extrinsic proof to be

invalid.

28.

11

On the date of any assignment, Defendants/Respondents filed said

assignments maintaining that assignee held a lien as beneficiary of the

subject security instrument.

29.

Extrinsic evidence retrieved from the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission’s search engine reveals transfers of beneficial ownership

affecting Plaintiff/Petitioners’ Property, all occurring prior to the dates of the

subject Assignments of Mortgage (Security Deed). This extrinsic evidence

can all be found under the corporate filing of Soundview Home Loan Trust

2004-OPT 4. None of these transfers of beneficial ownership were recorded.

All of them qualified as recordable transactions.

30.

All of this extrinsic evidence qualifies as a fact plausible on its face

for invalidating any assignments. Each and every one of these facts also

supports a cognizable legal theory for invalidating any assignment. These

prior beneficial transfers are published by the federal government as official

documents and their integrity and legitimacy cannot be reasonable disputed.

31.

12

The sole support for any assignment is a formulaic term in the

Mortgage. Plaintiff/Petitioners’ extrinsic evidence is worthy of belief and it

supports a cognizable legal theory for repudiating this formulaic term.

13

FOURTH QUIET TITLE CLAIM

32.

Through legal trickery, as described throughout this Petition,

Defendants/Respondents have attempted to maneuver a ministerial interest

into the appearance of a full beneficial interest. To reach this end, it has

engaged the fallacy that it is acting on behalf of the Lender’s successor in

interest.

33.

Defendants/Respondents are actually acting upon instructions from

the mortgage servicer. There is no functioning lender. Through legal

trickery, Respondents are placing themselves in a position to exercise legal

leverage that they have no authority whatsoever to exercise.

34.

Florida Statutes Chapter 65 provides that clouds against Petitioners’

title can be removed through Quieting Title to the Petitioners’ Property.

35.

Plaintiff/Petitioner holds an equitable interest in Petitioners’ Property

by virtue of a Certificate of Sale, Certificate of Title and Quitclaim Deed.

14

36.

The documents filed and recorded in the public records of Broward

County, Florida, by the named Defendants/Respondents constitute a cloud

upon Plaintiff/Petitioners’ Property.

37.

For purposes of the Statute, the date of filing of this Petition shall

also serve as the date in which a determination is sought.

38.

Plaintiff/Petitioner brings this Quiet Title action against these

Defendants/Respondents and require that Defendants/Respondents

demonstrate how any transfer of the contractual relationship with the

borrower, which includes the borrower approved interest in land, can take

place without fulfilling Statute of Frauds formalities prior to the dates of the

Assignments.

39.

Plaintiff/Petitioner brings this action against these

Defendants/Respondents and asks these Respondents to demonstrate how

each of them could be in a position to hold and convey the full beneficial

interest in the subject Mortgage, security instrument and Note when it had

no ownership interest in the note, the Statute of Frauds had been ignored,

15

and each Defendant/Respondent could not prove the full beneficial transfer

of ownership for this bearer instrument from its seller, as U.C.C. 2-203

requires.

40.

Plaintiff/Petitioner asks each named Defendant/Respondent to prove

that it is entitled to payments for its own use. Under terms in the Note, the

only party with the right to enforce this obligation is the party entitled to

payments for their own use.

41.

Plaintiff/Petitioner concedes that a mortgage loan was signed and

Plaintiff/Petitioner would be indebted to the rightful owner of this lien.

Plaintiff/Petitioner contends that the true owner is known but not identified

and their names are not discoverable. Plaintiff/Petitioner asks this Court to

use its Declaratory Judgment authority to expose those imposters by

removing these clouds and false claims of ownership to the note and

mortgage appearing in this chain of title at the Broward County Recorder’s

Office by ordering the following relief.

Prayer for Relief

Pursuant Florida Statutes Chapter 65, Plaintiff/Petitioner respectfully

prays this Court to issue a Declaratory Judgment finding that the interest of

16

these Defendants/Respondents in the subject Note and Mortgage was void

and of no legal force.

Pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 65, Petitioner asks this Court to

declare that each and every one of these Defendants/Respondents should be

disqualified from enforcing the subject Note and Mortgage and to order

Defendants/Respondents to summon the true owners consisting of holders

of mortgage backed securities owning at least a majority interest in the

subject Note and Mortgage.

That this Courts’ Declaratory Judgment should further address each

and every one of the clouds upon Plaintiff/Petitioners’ Property and order

such legal and equitable relief as is necessary for removing these clouds.

Plaintiff/Petitioner further requests reimbursement of all expenses

paid in connection with this legal proceeding, including court costs and

reasonable attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff/Petitioner further request any other relief in the form of

specific performance and compensation warranted by evidence in the record

and that the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems

equitable, appropriate and just.

VERIFIEDEMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

17

Plaintiff/Petitioner Nelson Luaces,Pro Se, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 65, move this Honorable Court for the entry of a Temporary

Restraining Order to enjoin and restrain all named Defendant/Respondents

from selling Petitioner’s property at a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the

subject property, Petitioners home, and as grounds therefore

would state as follows:

1.

Plaintiff/Petitioner have filed an action to Quiet Title to the property

located at 1120 NW 97th Avenue Unit 226, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024.

Hereinafter, this address and legal description as well as all

improvements

thereon shall be known and referred to as Petitioners’ Property. Said action

to Quiet Title to Petitioners property is presently pending before this Court.

2.

In their Quiet Title action Petitioners allege that named Respondents

have no legal interest in and to their property and have no standing to

foreclose or sell the subject property at a non-judicial public auction sale of

the property presently scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, 2014,

being February 4, 2014.

3.

18

It is within this Court’s wide discretion to grant a request for a

temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. See Grand

River Ent. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2007). Generally,

in order to warrant a court’s intervention in the form of injunctive relief,

“[t]he party seeking the injunction must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm

should the injunction not be granted, and (2) either (a) a likelihood of

success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the

merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking

injunctive relief.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Elman, 949 F.2d 624,626 (2d

Cir. 1991); Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72

(2d Cir. 1979); Citibank v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985); Virgin

Enterprises, Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2003).

4.

Plaintiff/Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury, the loss of his home

to an illegal judicial sale of their property unless the Court grants his

Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

Defendants/Respondents seek to illegally foreclose and sell

Plaintiff/Petitioners property through a judicial auction sale without any

legal justification in that Defendants/Respondents have and had no legal

standing to collect the subject note or foreclose the subject mortgage.

19

5.

Plaintiff/Petitioner has a likelihood of success on the merits of their

Quiet Title Complaint in that named Defendants/Respondents have no legal

interest in and to the subject property, which fact shall be established

through Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Quiet Title action.

6.

Plaintiff/Petitioner presents sufficiently serious questions going to the

merits of their claim which outweigh and tip the balance of hardship in favor

of Plaintiff/Petitioner.

7.

The granting of Petitioners Temporary Restraining Order is in the

public interest to prevent Respondents and others from foreclosing on the

homes of owners by non-judicial process without having the right to

foreclose and sell the property in violation of the laws of the State of Florida

and of the United States. Plaintiff/Petitioners is entitled to emergency ex

parte temporary injunctive relief by both Florida state law and the law of the

United States.

8.

A motion for emergency temporary declaratory and injunctive relief is

sought pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and on an

20

emergency basis without notice.

9.

Florida lawprovides that equity, by writ of injunction, may restrain

any act of a private individual or corporation which is illegal or contrary to

equity and good conscience and for which no adequate remedy is provided

at law.

10.

Florida law provides that writs of injunction may be issued by

courts to enjoin sales by sheriffs, at any time before a sale takes place, in any

proper case made by application for injunction.

11.

Plaintiff/Petitioner owns and occupies certain real property in the city

of Pembroke Pines, Broward County, Florida.

12.

Plaintiff/Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm

complained of, and the sale of the Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s property, under the

circumstances set forth herein, is contrary to equity and good conscience.

13.

Florida law provides that a temporary restraining order may be

granted without oral or written notice to the adverse party if it clearly

21

appears from the specific facts shown by verified complaint that immediate

and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the

adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and that the

applicant or their attorney certifies in writing, the efforts, if any, which have

been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the party’s claim

that notice should not be required.

14.

The specific facts set forth in this Verified Motion demonstrate that

unless a temporary injunction against the foreclosure sale set for February

19, 2014 is granted, that Plaintiff/Petitioner will suffer the irreparable injury,

loss and damage of the loss of his home and eviction therefrom, and loss of

all of his equity therein.

15.

Under the circumstances where the foreclosure sale is set for less than

five (5) calendar days from the date of the filing of this Verified Motion, the

irreparable loss to the Plaintiff/Petitioner will result before the

Defendants/Respondents may be heard in opposition to the relief requested

herein if the emergency relief requested herein is not granted immediately.

22

16.

Certification is set forth following the Verification of this Motion by

Petitioners.

17.

Under the circumstances of this case, where there is no harm to

Defendants/Respondents with the granting of the requested relief, no bond

should be required as a prerequisite to the granting of the relief requested

herein as there are no costs or other damages which could be contemplated

on the part of Defendant with the granting of the requested relief.

18.

Petitioners request that any requirement of a bond be waived in that

Petitioners are unable to obtain or afford a bond of any kind or type.

19.

Courts have long recognized that “[t]o satisfy the irreparable harm

requirement, [p]laintiffs must demonstrate that absent a preliminary

injunction they will suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative,

but actual and imminent . . . .” See Grand River, 481 F.3d at 66 (internal

citations omitted). Petitioners easily meet this standard.

20.

The threatened loss of Plaintiff/Petitioner’s home constitutes

23

irreparable injury.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this honorable

Court immediately take jurisdiction of this matter and enter an Order

granting temporary injunctive relief expressly precluding and cancelling the

foreclosure sale presently scheduled for February 19, 2014 for the reasons

set forth herein, and that the Court grant such other and further relief as the

Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted this ____day of February, 2014.

__________________________Nelson Luaces Plaintiff Pro Se1120 NW 97th Avenue, Unit 226Pembroke Pines, FL 33024Phone: ___________________

VERIFICATION

Plaintiff/Petitioner Nelson Luaces hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury,

verifies that he has read the foregoing Petition for Declaratory Relief to

Quiet Title and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and that the facts

contained therein are true and correct.

__________________________ Nelson Luaces1120 NW 97th Avenue, Unit 226Pembroke Pines, FL 33024

24

Phone: ___________________

25