Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 1 of 51 CROSS CLAIM IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHERN DIVISION AT KNOXVILLE LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. ____________ Plaintiff, v. CATHERINE GEBHARDT Defendant and Third-Party Defendant’s Counter to LNV’s Plaintiff Complaint and Cross Claim v. D. Andrew Beal; Beal Bank SSB et al; Beal Financial Corporation, et al; LNV Corporation et al; Bret Maloney; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NealMikeLance Corporation, et al; Joyce Linger; Michael T. Bates; Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership, et al; Jerry D. Kerley; Guarantee Land Title, et al Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. et al; Jeffery W. Tshirhart; Lorraine Brown; Yet Unknown Unnamed Parties Third-Party Defendants I. THIRD-PARTIES Defendant Name: _________________________________________________________ AND Street Address: _____________________________________________ Third-Party City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Plaintiff Telephone No. ______________________________________________ THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS Defendant No. 1 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ 3:12–CV–468 Catherine Gebhardt 3753 Thomas Cross Road Sevierville, TN, 37876 865-774-1248 D. Andrew Beal, c/o Beal Bank 6000 Legacy Drive Plano, TX 75024 469-467-5000
51
Embed
Gebhardt's Counter and Thrid Party Complaint against LNV Corporation and D. Andrew Beal and others
D. Andrew Beal's LNV Corporation brought a complaint for "Breach of Contract" in the U.S. District Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division of Knoxville against single Mom, Catherine Gebhardt.
Gebhardt thought she had an attorney working on her side, but learned at the last minute that her attorney was apparently working against her; he had filed nothing in her behalf and had done no discovery when she had been led to believe he had. At the last minute to prevent a summary judgment she had to file a counter and third party cross complaint in her own defense.
Beal through his attorney at Stites & Harbison, Kevin Hartly, committed fraud upon the court by attaching exhibits to their complaint that contained an electronically lifted Gebhardt signature on an alleged "original" note; by submitting a forged and fabricated Deed of Trust that is the same as the one in Gebhardt's possession that she signed at the closing of her mortgage in 2002. The owner of the Title Company that handled the transaction, Jerry Kerley, has already been criminally convicted of mortgage fraud. Gebhardt has proof of fraud in the securitization of her mortgage and in the servicing of her mortgage by both a GMAC subsiduary and by Beal's MGC Mortgage.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 1 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHERN DIVISION AT KNOXVILLE LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. ____________
Plaintiff, v.
CATHERINE GEBHARDT Defendant and Third-Party Defendant’s Counter to LNV’s Plaintiff Complaint and Cross Claim
v. D. Andrew Beal; Beal Bank SSB et al; Beal Financial Corporation, et al; LNV Corporation et al; Bret Maloney; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NealMikeLance Corporation, et al; Joyce Linger; Michael T. Bates; Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership, et al; Jerry D. Kerley; Guarantee Land Title, et al Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. et al; Jeffery W. Tshirhart; Lorraine Brown; Yet Unknown Unnamed Parties
Third-Party Defendants
I. THIRD-PARTIES
Defendant Name: _________________________________________________________ AND Street Address: _____________________________________________
Third-Party City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________
Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., et al 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360
Lake Zurich, IL 60047 847-550-7300
Beal Financial Corporation
Joyce Linger
202 Simmons Street
Bret Maloney, c/o Beal Bank
6000 Legacy Drive Plano, TX 75024
469-467-5000
Michael T. Bates
865-983-6030
Spencer, West Virginia, 25276
304-519-5225
2592 Creekstone Cricle Maryville, TN 37804
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 3 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
Defendant No. 9 Name: _____________________________________________________ Street Address: ______________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________
Defendant No. 10 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 11 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 12 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 13 Name: _________________________________________________________ C/O: _____________________________________________ Street Address: _______________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 14 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________
4000 International Pkwy, #3000 Carrollton, TX 75007
972-862-5000
Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership
6000 Legacy Drive Plano, TX 75024
469-467-5000
Jeffery W. “Jeff” Tshirhart, c/o Beal Bank
4000 International Pkwy, #3000
Carrollton, TX 75007
972-862-5000
NealMikeLance Corporation
800 Market Street, Suite 211
Knoxville, TN, 37902
865-545-4167
Jerry D. Kerely
Mark Devereaux, U.S. Attorneys Office
300 N Hogan Street, Suite 700
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Lorraine Brown
204 Parkway Sevierville TN 37862
865-453-1478
Guarantee Land Title
904-301-6300
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 4 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
II. JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal
court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. A case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. A case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages claimed is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Federal Question Diversity of Citizenship
B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory, or treaty right is at issue?
The court has jurisdiction over all defendants and Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. Additionally damages exceed $75,000.
X X
18 USC 63 et seq., (Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses); 18 USC § 1961 et seq.,
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); 12 U.S.C. 27 et seq., (Real
Protection and Truth in Lending Acts); 18 USC 47 et seq. (Fraud and False
Statements); 18 USC § 1348 et seq. (Securities and Commodities Fraud); 15 U.S.C. §
77a, et seq., (Securities Act of 1933); 18 USC Chapter 11, et seq., (Bribery, Graft,
and Conflicts of Interest); 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., (Equal Credit Opportunity Act);
47 U.S.C. § 227(e) et seq. (Truth in Caller ID Act); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
(P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution
Tennessee
Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, West Virginia,
Nevada
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 5 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT I Violation of Privacy of Consumer Personal Financial Information
Counsel for LVN failed to block out my social security number on the Exhibits he filed to support
LNV’s Complaint and other pleadings. This is an egregious violation of my right to the privacy of my
‘‘Nonpublic personal information’’ and it is a violation of the rules pertaining to electronic filing of legal
proceedings in this court. Identity theft is a serious concern and now my social security number has been in
the public record for a year. I beg the court to take immediate action to block out my social security number
on these Exhibits and to reprimand LNV’s counsel for making it public.
COUNT II Defendants: Joyce Linger, Jerry D. Kerley, Guarantee Land Title, Michael T. Bates, Sebring Capital Partners Inc., yet unknown or unnamed parties.
Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Origination
I, Catherine Gebhardt, a single mother of four children, arrived in Sevierville in the year 2002 in
Tennessee for a job transfer/promotion. My children and I arrived to live in Sevierville on or around
September 30, 2002 though we had visited Sevier County for two days the previous month, to see the
attractions in the region, and at that time, I with my children met with realtor Teresa Brooks who
represented ReMax First Choice Realtors. Up to that time, I’d only spoken with Teresa Brooks a few times
by telephone when I was still in Texas. Teresa Brooks showed me and my family a few properties on the
market during that short visit. I was interested in one property shown by Ms. Brooks which is now the
property involved in this court action. I made an offer through Teresa at which time in good faith, I also put
earnest money down with Teresa in the amount of $ 2,500.00. With my family I then returned to Texas.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 6 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
In the meantime, Teresa Brooks started to organize temporary corporate housing. I had told her we
planned to move to Sevierville as quickly as possible, as all of my children were of school age and the
school year had already begun, therefore time was of the essence. After the corporate housing arrangement
was finalized by Ms. Brooks, I with my children and their beloved pet came to TN to move into the
corporate set-up on or around September 30, 2002. Teresa Brooks introduced me to Broker Joyce Linger,
who said that she could organize financing and that it would be no problem, based upon my income. At the
time of moving to Sevierville, I knew no one else in the area and was not familiar with most land and
property values in Sevierville or in Sevier County. I was, however, highly motivated to find a home for my
children and all persons associated with me at that time knew this to be true.
Joyce Linger gave me a few documents to sign during our first meeting, concerning obtainment of
financing. I had no knowledge the process of securing financing, nor what documents were to be signed,
nor what exactly was involved, as I relied on Joyce Linger as a broker to guide me in the right direction.
Looking backward now, I can certainly attest that the entire process was extremely unorganized and
chaotic. Ms. Brooks tried her best to act as a liaison to facilitate the process, however she herself was
becoming increasingly frustrated with the chaos and at one time within days of the closing date, voiced this
aloud to both Neal and Joyce Linger while in their office; which resulted in Ms. Brooks being abruptly
“thrown out” of Joyce Linger’s office at PrimeOne Group by Joyce and her then husband, Neal Linger. At
this time, Ms. Brooks was very upset and came to my office (which was also in a central downtown region
within fairly close proximity to PrimeOne) and told me that she had been removed from the Linger office by
forcefully being told to “get out!”
Ms. Brooks also stated at that time, that in all of her twenty some odd years in working in real estate,
she had never been kicked out of an office or asked to leave by a party so aggressively. Within just days
after this occurrence, Joyce Linger called me and said that she had gained approval for the loan and she
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 7 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
projected a certain date for closing, though for unknown reasons, that closing date was rescheduled from the
date projected earlier by Joyce herself, to a later date, being November 7, 2002.
On November 6, 2002, I received a call from Guaranty Land Title. The party who called (I can’t
remember exactly who) told me I would need to bring $15,000 plus to closing the following day in the form
of certified cashier’s check.
On November 7, 2002, I attended the closing at Guaranty Land Title in Sevierville which started at
approximately 1:00 pm. To the best of my recollection, in attendance at the closing, were Teresa Brooks of
ReMax, Pioneer Realty Representative (name unknown), Ronnie and Sandra Sullivan (sellers), Joyce and
Neal Linger (PrimeOne Group brokers), Jerry Kerley (attorney), and Lafonda O’Quinn (notary).
At closing, I was given multiple documents to sign by Jerry Kerley and Joyce Linger. I was led to
believe that Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership was the lender. I signed these multiple
documents with the understanding that these papers were genuine closing documents. It is noteworthy to
mention that two transactions occurred on that day, relating to the same property.
The first transaction was for the purchase of the house of which I was led to believe by broker Joyce
Linger, was to be funded by Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership. The second transaction was
between me and the seller for the purchase of three additional vacant acres, adjacent to the property with the
house, of which the seller financed and this financing had nothing to do with the lender, Sebring Capital
Partners, Limited Partnership.
During closing, Neal Linger (husband of Joyce Linger) approached me and stated that “their fees
were not included” in the monies made payable to Guaranty Land Title, and I had to leave the closing table
to trek to the bank and obtain additional monies; though the bank was closed. I wrote a personal check and
was directed by Neal Linger to make the check payable to Guaranty Land Title for the broker fees which he
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 8 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
said were not included. After a long and tedious day, Joyce Linger gave me the keys to the house and told
me I could take possession of the house on that day. I with my children and their pet, moved into the house
on the night of November 7, 2002.
Within the first two weeks of taking possession of my home I received a notice in the mail which
stated, “Welcome to Homecomings Financial.” I had no idea who Homecomings was, but I followed the
instructions on the letter directing me to send payments to them. I was very happy to do this as I was happy
to have found a permanent home for my family. I did however find this rather strange, as I’d just left the
closing table two weeks before, believing I’d be paying Sebring Capital Partners, LP.
The Deed of Trust (“DOT”) naming Michael T. Bates as Trustee filed in Sevier County land records
by the Lingers and Jerry Kerley, a partner in Guarantee Land Title, was not the DOT I signed at closing.
I initialed each and every page of the DOT I signed at closing. Kerley did not notarize anything that
was signed at the closing; all notarization was done by Lafonda O'Quinn. Yet the Deed of Trust filed with
the county was notarized by Jerry Kerley and my initials are not on a single page. This is highly irregular as
it is common practice in the mortgage industry for a borrower to initial each page. I discovered this altered
DOT only after LNV filed its Complaint against me in September 2012.
Michael T. Bates appears as Trustee on numerous DOTs filed across the southeastern United States;
he is also named as a party in an insurance fraud investigation initiated by the United States.
Michael T. Bates in 2002 was employed as an executive vice president with Southern Title Insurance
Corporation, a regional title underwriter, based in Richmond VA, with an office in Knoxville TN, which per
the securitization audit report, may be one of the insurance policies taken on the my property as a credit
default swap at the loan’s origination.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 9 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
Shortly after LNV filed its Complaint I took my origination and closing documents to Michael
Alfred, CPA, in Maryville for review and a professional opinion. Alfred examined all the critical financial
documents and found many serious discrepancies indicating a misappropriation funds and so many
differences between various points of reference on the financial disclosures in the contract that no
contractual terms or agreement could possibly be discerned. Different loan amounts and terms are reflected
on each of the disclosures; i.e. the Truth in Lending Disclosure, the Settlement Statement, the DOT, the
Note, etc. This is a violation of TILA and RESPA.
LNV brings their action against me for breach of contract. A legally enforceable contract must have
clear terms and mutual agreement between parties to be valid and enforceable. Close examination of the
alleged original “contract” shows a much more sinister reason for all the financial discrepancies noted
above; FRAUD.
I had received a letter from Sebring dated November 4, 2002 verifying they had received my loan
application, yet I was asked to sign new loan application at closing. I discovered on or around May 2013,
after I finally obtained records I’d been requesting from Jerry Kerley’s office since 2011, that someone
altered that loan application. The copy I found in Kerley’s records showed that I was not an American
citizen and did not buy my house for residential purposes.
I signed an occupancy certificate at closing that was also signed by Kerley. My children and I did
occupy the house and have occupied the house for residential purposes. I am an American citizen. This false
loan application had to have been altered sometime after closing and may have been used by Kerley, Linger
and/or others for personal gain.
I must have signed a blank loan application at the closing. In fact, a blank “uniform residential loan
application” was attached as Exhibit A to my answer to LNV’s Complaint prepared by my former counsel,
Doug Taylor, and filed on September 27, 2012. This blank loan application with my signature was also
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 10 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
found in the records received from Kerley’s office. A review of the records in their entirety, and the gross
discrepancies which exist, this blank loan application may have been used for any number of transactions by
Kerley and Linger without my knowledge.
I discovered from the Alfred examination of my loan documents that the $28,000 I had arranged to
pay directly to the seller Sullivan for the extra acreage as a separate contract was actually added into the
Sebring loan. I did not receive those funds. I made regular payments of $425/month directly to Sullivan for
the extra acreage. My separate contract with him included a balloon payment due at the end of 2004, but I
nearly died in a car accident on September 16, 2004 and was hospitalized several months so I could not pay
the balloon payment and Sullivan and I mutually agreed to rescind our separate contract.
Kerley and the Lingers apparently kept the extra $28,000 with other funds they had padded into my
loan; including the additional money I was made to pay at closing because the Lingers claimed their fees
was not included. Considerable evidence exists to substantiate my claim of conspiracy between Kerley,
Guarantee Land Title, Bates and the Lingers to defraud me during loan origination.
On or around December 2012 I requested a full history of my homeowner’s insurance policy back to
the inception of my mortgage from Kevin Yates my Allstate agent. The records were archived so Retrieval
took time. They came in April of 2013. My insurance policy I paid for at closing was canceled within one
month. I phoned my agent’s office to ask why. Kristine Meyers verified with their corporate office that the
original policy was written too high, far exceeding the actual value of my home.
Christine further explained that Rick White who originally wrote the policy had done so at the
direction of Joyce Linger or the lender, [Sebring.] Kristine said that Rick White closed his franchise and
sold his assets to Kevin Yates in or around December 2002 and when Yates discovered the canceled policy
he rewrote it for a lower home value and the corporate office accepted it. A new appraisal was not done. The
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 11 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
Allstate corporate office and/ or Yates Allstate did issue a refund because the policy was re-written at a
lower cost, however the refund did not come to me.
The appraisal had been for $286,000 exactly the amount asked for by the seller and is dated
November 7, 2002. It was prepared by Joyce Linger's relative, Virginia Johnson. I had no way to know at
the time that this was an over-inflated appraisal.
Joyce Linger misrepresented and failed to disclose the actual loan terms and the loan costs and fees
added into the loan as required by TILA and RESPA. These misrepresentations and omissions were
knowingly made by Kerley and Linger. I relied on these material misrepresentations and omissions. Kerley
and Linger knew I would rely on them and expected me to rely on them. My reliance on their intentional
misrepresentation caused me to enter into a highly predatory loan contract to my detriment and for the
unjust enrichment of Kerley, Bates, Linger and others.
I also had a title search done after LNV filed their Breach of Contract Complaint against me and
discovered that Jerry Kerley prepared and filed a warranty deed in Sevier County as part of the closing on
November 7, 2002. This was to show that the property was clear from all encumbrances and liens. Sullivan
was paid on November 7, 2002. Land records show that Sullivan still had a Washington Mutual lien on the
property that he personally paid off or around December 2, 2002. Other land records exist that cast doubt on
the title. Several loans appear to have been taken out on the property by Sullivan and it is unclear whether
they were all paid off. I was sold a property with an existing lien and without a clear title; this was not
disclosed to me and is something which would have or should have been known by Kerley.
Kerley, the Lingers, Sebring, Bates and others did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire,
confederate and agree with themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to
execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means
of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of executing such
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 12 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
scheme and artifice which directly caused me to suffer significant pecuniary loss, inconvenience,
discomfort, and substantial mental distress as a result.
Jerry Kerley has already been convicted on criminal charges of mortgage fraud. (UNITED STATES
of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey WHALEY, and Jerry D. Kerley, Defendant.)
I am a victim of Kerley’s crimes. A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an
estoppel on defendants as to the facts supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291
U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d
693, 705 (1975))
Fraud nullifies everything it touches.
THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY AND NEGOTIABILITY OF THE ALLEGED CONTRACT
LNV ALLEGES IT HAS AQUIRED IS DISPUTED.
Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Securitization
On August 30, 2013 I ordered a professional securitization audit on my mortgage. The audit was
done by former police officer and private investigator, Bill Paalato, of BP Investigations. His investigation
uncovered that:
1. Sebring was stated as the “Lender” on the Deed of Trust when in fact Sebring was not the true and
actual “lender”, but rather Sebring was acting as a “Table-Funder.” Table funding is generally
defined as:
“A lending method employed when a loan originator does not have access to the
money necessary to make loans and then hold them until it has enough to sell on the
secondary market. The originator forms a relationship with a lender/investor that
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 13 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
provides the funds for closing and immediately takes an assignment of the loan.
This is called table funding. Under regulations of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, table-funded loans must disclose service release premiums,
i.e. profit received by the originator on the loan closing settlement statement.”
(Source: The Free Dictionary by Farflex, which can be found at http://financial-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/table+funding. This website cites “The Complete
Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD.
North Ontario, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3190 the undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to:
Residential Funding Company LLC, 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55437 all
beneficial interest under certain Deed of Trust…”
Many problems with this alleged assignment exist. First Residential Funding Company LLC is
assigning the DOT from itself to itself.
Second, this assignment is signed by Christine Renner simultaneously as Assistant Vice President of
four different companies and is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. Thirdly, in the lower left corner of this
assignment it states: “Prepared by MGC Mortgage.” MGC Mortgage was not incorporated until January 1,
2008. Fourthly:
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 34 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
Christine Renner signature is a false signature
Christine Renner signed similar land records as the Vice President of Deutshe Bank Trust Company
Americas fka Bankers Trust Company as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential
Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact. (see Exhibit B on pages 49 and 50 of 51)
Christine Renner cannot at the same time be the Vice President of:
1. The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. etc… as
per the assignment pertaining to my DOT and,
2. Deutshe Bank Trust Company Americas fka Bankers Trust Company etc… as per the Pottawattamie
County Iowa assignment.
False Assignment filed 8/06/2008
An alleged Corporation Assignment of DOT was filed with Sevier County on August 6, 2008 that
purports “For value received ‘Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation’ the
undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to: LNV Corporation, 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano Texas
75024. (Notice this is the same address as MGC for the empty lot.)
This assignment was allegedly executed on August 10, 2008. However LNV Corporation was not
incorporated in Nevada until August 17, 2008. According the Nevada Secretary of State, Nevada law
specifies that an entity cannot legally do business or enter into transactions prior to its incorporation date.
I can produce several witnesses with similar evidence of fraud committed by LNV against them.
When this evidence is considered together as a whole it shows a conspiracy to defraud and a pattern of fraud
on the part of LNV, MGC, and Beal and his other “sham” companies. It further shows D. Andrew Beal who
is the ultimate owner of LNV and MGC is also a co-conspirator in the crimes of Lorraine Brown who has
already been convicted with unnamed co-conspirators for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in favor of
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 35 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
the United States. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District; United
States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.)
Excerpted from Lorraine Brown criminal plea of guilt:
“The manner and means by which Brown, her co-conspirators, and others sought to accomplish the
purposes and objectives of the conspiracy included forging and falsifying signatures on the
mortgage-related documents that they prepared and filed with property recorders' offices
throughout the United States.
These documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits, were
later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy
court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received the documents such
as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents as genuine.”
The forged and falsified signatures on the Deed Assignments filed against my property are consistent
with the manner and means identified by the United States in their criminal conviction of Brown. These
false records were indeed mailed and/or transferred electronically to my county. I am most certainly a
victim of the same crimes identified by the United States in their indictment of Lorraine Brown. The United
States identified unnamed co-conspirators in their indictment, LNV, MGC, Dovenmuehle, Beal and his
other companies and other accomplices are responsible for producing and mailing or electronically
transferring these false instruments.
A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on defendants as to the facts
supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed.
804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705 (1975))
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 36 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
CONCLUSION
Beal, Beal Bank, Beal Financial, LNV, and Dovenmuehle along with NealMikeLance Corporation,
Lorraine Brown, and others, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with
themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a
scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United States mail and private and commercial
interstate carriers, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1341.
A determination of the ultimate facts pertaining to an assignment from Sebring to either RFC or the
Trust is at the heart of this case. LNV cannot have a valid claim against me for breach of contract when:
1. There is question about the enforceability of the contract between the original parties,
2. LNV has no proof a valid or legal assignment of the DOT and Note (i.e. mortgage contract) was ever
made from Sebring to RFC. Further complicating the matter is that we know my mortgage was
securitized into the Trust between November 7, 2002 and January 1, 2003, the closing date for the
Trust. No legal or valid assignment exists between Sebring and the Trust. And by all appearances
RFC has made a false and illegal claim of equitable interest in the DOT.
3. LNV cannot prove is has the true “original” Note; since the one it has produced and submitted to this
court is a false fabrication. And it can be deduced from the fact that LNV resorted to producing a
false fabrication that LNV does not have the original wet signature Note.
4. The fact that LNV has produced falsified documents and caused them to be filed through the mail
and via electronic transmission with the Sevier County land recorder bars LNV from prevailing in a
breach of contract because it has “unclean hands” and because it has committed the crime of fraud.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 37 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
COUNT IV Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants
Pattern of Criminal Activity Prohibited Under 18 USC Chapter 96 This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964.
Defendants named in this counter complaint with third party cross defendants are engaged in a
regular and systematic course of conduct in Tennessee, and across the United States that included(s) but was
and is not limited to: false claims and representations in the origination of mortgage loans; false claims and
representations regarding mortgage loan costs; false claims and representations regarding Libor and
mortgage rates; false claims and representations regarding mortgage loan defaults; false claims and
representations regarding mortgage securitizations; false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating
to real property; the institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings
based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection, through one or more agents
including but not limited to the named and yet unknown and unnamed defendants of monies allegedly owed
on secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the
perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States, including this Court, through false and
fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of
non-judicial foreclosure actions which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a
pattern of criminal activity.
The actions and course of conduct of Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint were
executed, as to me, in the same manner and means (fraudulent misrepresentations in the origination of
mortgages); (fraudulent misrepresentations in the securitization of mortgages); (fraudulent
misrepresentations in documents filed in courts, public records, and through the mails); with the same
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 38 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
motive (to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same intended class of victims (owners of
real property) and the same intended consequences (wrongfully foreclosing on real property), pursuant to a
well-planned and orchestrated scheme to defraud which was executed on a national scale throughout the
United States through the institution of fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations
of foreclosure laws in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions, resulting in a nationalized
fraud which has resulted in damages to me and to hundreds of thousands of other homeowners in Tennessee
and in other States.
This pattern of fraudulent origination of mortgages, fraudulent securitization of mortgages, insurance
fraud, servicing fraud, filing false declarations in foreclosures for purposes of manufacturing legal standing
and causing the execution of false and fraudulent “Assignments” of mortgages and DOTs and failure to
provide proof of legal ownership of the full and unencumbered interest in the Note and Mortgage to further
fraudulent foreclosures nationwide is consistent with defendants’ pattern of criminal activity prohibited
under 18 USC Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS; 18 USC
§ 1962 - Prohibited activities.
At all times material hereto, the Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint had actual
knowledge that their written statements as to alleged ownership of my mortgage loan and the legal
entitlement to demand monies from me and which they used to institute foreclosure proceedings were false
statements of material fact which were false when made and known by said Third-Party Defendants to be
false when made.
Third-Party Defendants made the subject false statements with the specific intent that I and the
courts would rely thereon and with the separate specific intent, which separate specific intent was unknown
to me at the time, to defraud me.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 39 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
Not being in the mortgage lending or mortgage loan acquisition businesses, I reasonably relied upon
the written statements of Third-Party Defendants and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying
monies to said Third-Party Defendants when demanded thereby.
As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of these Third-Party
Defendants, I have suffered damages and personal injury.
The fraudulent conduct engaged in by the Third-Party Defendants constitutes a separate and
independent tort separate and apart from any breach of any contract.
Third-Party Defendants’ CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD includes, but is not limited to: At all times
material hereto, these Third-Party Defendants agreed, between and among themselves and in combination
with each other and various agents identified herein, as to each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
and enterprise, to engage in unlawful actions for a common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon me
and others through fraudulent mortgage origination practices, through fraudulent mortgage securitization
practices, through fraudulent mortgage servicing practices, through fraudulent threats of foreclosure and
fraudulent foreclosure filings whereby the Defendants would obtain the use and benefit, under fraudulent
pretenses, of my real property at my expense and without compensating me therefore; to unlawfully convert
my real property and permanently deprive me thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of these
Third-Party Defendants’ actions to be saddled upon me, which consequences include but are not limited to
the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses; personal injury; and the adverse effects of claimed
defaults and foreclosures placed on my credit report.
18 USC § 1962 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person:
1) who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering
activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 40 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any
enterprise.
2) through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, any
interest in or control of any enterprise or real property;
3) employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity;
4) to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2), or (3).
All Third-Party Defendants here named have engaged in “racketeering activity” as defined by 18
USC § 1961.
As set forth above, these Third-Party Defendants intentionally manufactured a scheme to defraud
homeowners on a nationalized level whereby these Third-Party Defendants, through the use of the mails, the
public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and fraudulent documents relating to the claimed
and alleged ownership and “holder” status of mortgage loans when these Third-Party Defendants had actual
knowledge that they had no such status, doing so through perjured documents and material
misrepresentations with the specific intent to commit theft of residential real property.
As set forth above, I relied upon these Third-Party Defendants’ representations (as any reasonably
and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and proximately caused me to suffer specific
damages and personal injury.
The actions of these Third-Party Defendants were specifically directed to the named Third-Party
Plaintiff herein.
In order to accomplish their objective, these Third-Party Defendants developed and were part of an
enterprise, which consisted of these Third-Party Defendants and their agents including but not limited to
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 41 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
various law Firms and “Trustee Sale” companies, which worked together and in concert at the direction of
the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the pattern of criminal activity set forth herein,
including notary fraud and a regular pattern and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public
records to institute and further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners.
18 USC Chapter 96 defines “pattern of criminal activity” as engaging in at least two incidents of
criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of
commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents
and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of criminal activity. As set
forth herein, the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by these Third-Party Defendants did not arise out of
a single contract or transaction, and in fact involved numerous contracts and transactions which spread
across the United States, including those pertaining to the Third-Party Plaintiff identified herein.
As set forth herein, the Third-Party Defendants, through their predicate acts and pattern of criminal
activity which these Third-Party Defendants engaged in throughout the United States on a regular and
continuous basis and with a defined and intentional purpose, conducted a nationalized fraud, the victims of
which were the American homeowner including the Third-Party Plaintiff herein.
As further set forth herein, these RICO Defendants who were employed by and associated with the
enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity including but
not limited to a nationalized pattern of filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting
false and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with
applicable foreclosure laws.
As set forth hereinabove and hereinbelow, these RICO Defendants also conspired and endeavored to
violate the activities prohibited by 18 USC § 1961 sections (1), (2), and (3).
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 42 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
These RICO Defendants specifically engaged in their pattern of criminal activity at my expense and
for their own benefit.
As a direct and proximate result of the overt, concerted, and conspiratorial actions of the here named
Third-Party Defendants through and with their agents, I have suffered significant pecuniary loss, personal
injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and substantial mental distress by reason of these RICO Defendants’
numerous violations of Federal and State laws regulating fraud, racketeering, theft, forgery, perjury, bribery,
graft and corruption with intent of defrauding me of my money and my property.
As set forth above, I am thus entitled to demand and does demand threefold actual damages against
the RICO Defendants.
COUNT V Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants
Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.
I was targeted for property appraisal fraud, loan origination fraud, a highly predatory loan,
fraudulent loan padding, securitization fraud and other misrepresentations and omissions of material fact
that I relied upon to my detriment; and that those here named knew to be false and had made with intent to
deceive me and with motive of unjust enrichment. I was targeted for such fraud because I met certain
criteria, including but not limited to:
a. I am a female head-of-household and the sole signer on her mortgage.
b. I was new to the area and desperate to get my children settled into a home so they could
begin school and I could focus on my new job.
This criterion was used by defendants to target minorities and other vulnerable consumer groups
(including female head of households) for highly predatory mortgage loans and for other financial fraud.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 43 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
There is no legal definition of “subprime loan,” although the federal government has provided guidance on
how to identify subprime loans. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) required mortgage lenders
to disclose certain information about each mortgage loan originated or purchased in a fiscal year. Pursuant
to regulations promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board, since 2004 the HMDA data has included a
designation for “high-cost” loans. Indentifying certain loans as “high-cost” operates as a proxy for
identifying subprime loans. A “high-cost” loan is defined as a first-lien loan with an annual percentage rate
and borrowing costs that exceed by more than 3 percentage points Treasury securities of comparable
maturity.
Although the distinction between prime and subprime lending ostensibly tracks differences in a
borrower's creditworthiness, in fact many lenders and brokers simply tried to maximize the share of loans
they originated on subprime terms. One analysis conducted for the Wall Street Journal found that, in 2005,
55% of subprime mortgages were given to borrowers with sufficiently high credit scores to qualify for
prime loans. See Rick Brooks & Ruth Simon, Subprime Debacle Traps Even Very Credit-Worthy, Wall
Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2007, at A1.
Not all subprime loans are predatory, but nearly all predatory loans are subprime. Most
fundamentally, predatory loans place a borrower at an elevated risk of default or foreclosure. The
interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending enumerates certain tactics that may indicate
predatory lending. Nonprofit groups have also published widely accepted guidance on the kinds of practices
that may constitute predatory lending. See, e.g., NAT’L COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COAL., THE BROKEN
CREDIT SYSTEM: DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUAL ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE LOANS BY RACE AND AGE 4 (2004).
Like the Combined-Risk Loan at issue in this complaint, predatory loans typically combine risky loan
features, thereby placing the borrower at an excessive risk of default and foreclosure.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 44 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
For purposes of this complaint, "Combined-Risk Loans" are loans that meet the definition of high-
cost loan under the HMDA and also contain two or more of the following high-risk terms: (a) the loan was
issued based upon “stated income,” rather that the verified income, of the borrower; (b) the debt-to-income
ratio exceeds 55%; (c) the loan-to-value ratio is at least 90%; (d) the loan has an adjustable interest rate; (e)
the loan has “interest only” payment features; (f) the loan has negative loan amortization features; (g) the
loan has “balloon” payment features; and/or (h) the loan imposes prepayment penalties.
Individually these loan features make loans riskier and costlier to the borrower. When multiple such
features are layered within the same loan, the riskiness and the costliness of the loans increase dramatically.
The age and gender disparities giving rise to this action/cause were a direct consequence of the
Trusts’ policies for securitizing Sebring loans. Joyce Linger’s and Sebring’s intensive focus on originating
subprime loans classified as “high-cost” under HMDA was a result of higher fees offered by the Trusts for
such loans. Because its receipt of fees had little or no connection to how securities performed, and because it
saw financial advantages for itself in buying and packaging Combined-Risk Loans in particular, the Trust,
focused heavily on increasing the volume of Combined-Risk Loans it purchased. The predominant standard
for loan quality for Sebring and other loan originators like them, became whether the loans they originated
could be initially sold or securitized in the secondary market. The Trust understood the key role that
securitization played in shaping the practices of “lenders” like Sebring.
During the time period when my loan was originated, the Trust required Sebring, as a condition of
the companies’ lucrative business relationship, to issue large volumes of Combined-Risk Loans. The high
risk features of these loans increased the costs of the loans for borrowers and placed them at greater risk of
default, delinquency, and foreclosure.
These Third Party Defendants’ aggressive development of these loan pools disproportionally
impacted minorities, female head-of-households, the disabled and seniors over the age of 50 who were more
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 45 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
likely to receive these categorically harmful loans than other borrowers. As a result, I faced a greater risk of
default and foreclosure.
The racial, gender and age disparities giving rise to this action were a direct consequence of the
Trust’s policies for securitizing loans originated by the Lingers and Sebring and other subprime “lenders.”
Defendants’ policies and practices have resulted in considerable racial, gender and age disparities. I
seek, through this action, to obtain injunctive relief preventing these Third-Party Defendants from engaging
in this discriminatory conduct in the future.
I also seek to disgorge unjust enrichment these Third-Party Defendants derived from its
discriminatory conduct and to remedy economic harms suffered as a result of the policies challenged in this
lawsuit.
These Third-Party Defendants’ discrimination violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et
seq. ("FHA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. ("ECOA").
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the FHA and ECOA claims pursuant to 28
1. That the Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this action;
2. That a judgment be entered against LNV and the other Third-Party Defendants in favor of Gebhardt
for injunctive relief and declaratory relief, and for equitable monetary relief in the nature of
disgorgement, in amounts to be determined at trial;
3. That the Court award damages for tortious injury and personal injury and other equitable relief to
Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial;
4. That the Court award actual damages to Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial;
5. That the Court awards threefold actual damages to Plaintiff, as per the RICO Statutes.
6. That the court appoint a pro-bono counsel(s) to assist Gebhardt in discovery and at trial;
7. That the Court order Defendants to pay Gebhardt’s litigation costs.
8. That the Court award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable by law; and
9. That the Court grant for all other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary, appropriate
and which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.
Plaintiff requests a jury on the claims so triable.
________________________________________
Catherine Gebhardt
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 48 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
This is page 6 of 9 from LNV’s “Exhibit A” attached to their Complaint. LNV alleges Gebhardt signed an Addendum to the original Adjustable Rate Rider. The alleged Gebhardt signature is not dated and this page is not numbered. Nothing associates this alleged signature page with the alleged Adjustable Rate Rider or the alleged Addendum it allegedly approved.
It appears Gebhardt’s signature has been electronically lifted and placed onto the page. Had the printer ink streak occurred when this page was printed or if it was on the page when the signature was made then there would not be white space between the edges of the letters. See close-up below.
Notice the white spaces – this can only occur on a PhotoShopped fabrication; i.e. an electronically lifted image of a signature that was placed on top of the ink streak. This would be an impossible on an original wet signature as LNV claims this is.
Exhibit A
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 49 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
EXHIBIT B - page 1
Gebhardt assignment – Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company NA, as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact
MGC Mortgage is the preparer of this instrument that was allegedly executed on May 30, 2007 when MGC was not incorporated until January 1, 2008.
This instrument is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. This is not possible since the Trust databases show that the Gebhardt loan was not paid off in the Trust until July 2007.
This instrument allegedly assigns equitable interest from RFC to RFC.
Why would RFC need to execute an assignment to itself?
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 50 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
EXHIBIT B - page 2
In this Pottawattamie County assignment – Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of Deutsche Bank Trust Company America fka Bankers Trust Company, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact
In the Gebhardt land record she is VP of two companies – between these two instruments it appears that Christine Renner is VP of four companies at the same time.
This instrument is allegedly executed on March 22, 2007 barely two months before the Gebhardt assignment was allegedly executed.
Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt
COUNTER COMPLAINT Page 51 of 51 CROSS CLAIM
This assignment is a false instrument for the following reasons:
The DOT was executed on 11/7/02 and filed on 11/13/02 – the Trustee named on the DOT is “Michael T. Bates.” This assignment alleges that “JPMorgan Chase Bank” is the Trustee. No Substitution of Trustee had been filed between the execution dates of these two instruments, and it is not legally possible for there to be two trustees.
It is unclear who is actually being assigned the equitable interest in the DOT. Chase is the “trustee” and equitable title cannot be assigned to the trustee. The use of “c/o RFC” means that RFC is an agent in behalf of some unnamed entity and RFC is entrusted to “deliver” to this party. This is not a legal assignment of equitable title in property.
RFC is named as the “Servicer” for the Trust in which the Gebhardt loan was securitized. Equitable title cannot legally be assigned to a “Servicer.”
Additionally the signature of Gayna Yeager is a forgery.