Robert Rasmussen, Robert B. Glenn Charged With INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 9
(Page 1 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 2 of 9
(Page 2 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 3 of 9
(Page 3 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 4 of 9
(Page 4 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 5 of 9
(Page 5 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 6 of 9
(Page 6 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 7 of 9
(Page 7 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 8 of 9
(Page 8 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 9 of 9
(Page 9 of Total)
1/18/2015
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 1
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to

be in Florida.
In joining forces with Tampa-based law firm Glenn Rasmussen, P.A., we
are now an integral part of the dynamic Florida business community. We
offer more resources, more geographic reach and more opportunity across
the board to our clients and prospective clients. Both firms are dedicated to
the highest quality legal work and exceptional client service. As one firm,
we will be all of that, and more.
CLICK TO READ MORE.
[Next]
1/13/2015
1/12/2015
Firm Chairman Beau Grenier Interviewed in

Birmingham Business Journal
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Welcomes

Partner Phillip E. Walker
Firm Chairman Beau Grenier w as recently interview ed in the
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to announce that Phillip
Birmingham Business Journal, follow ing the firms tenth consecutive
E. Walker has joined the firms Nashville office as a partner and
year ranked as Birminghams largest law firm. The articles author
member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. He w as previously
noted that Bradley Arant is no stranger to success; the firm made [the
a shareholder w ith the law firm Patterson Intellectual Property Law ,
BBJs] list of Most Admired Companies in 2014 and w as one of the
P.C. in Nashville.
few firms that prospered during the recession.
We are very excited to w elcome Phil to our firm, said Firm Chairman
In the Q&A, Grenier discusses trends in the legal market, the climate
Beau Grenier. He is a talented law yer w ith great skills and a
for the legal industry in Birmingham, and w hat the future holds for
dedication to client service. We think he w ill be a great fit for our firm
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
and our clients.
LEARN MORE
LEARN MORE
http://www.babc.com/
(Page 10 of Total)
1/1
1/18/2015
Eight Shareholders selected to the 2014 Florida Super Lawyers List
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 1
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1300, Tampa, FL 33602

813.229.3333 | 813.229.5946 Fax
About Us
Practice Areas
Attorneys
Global Reach
Search Site
News
Contact Us
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Eight Shareholders selected to the 2014 Florida Super Lawyers List

Glenn Rasmussen, P.A. announces that eight of its shareholders have been selected for inclusion in Florida Super Lawyers magazines top
attorneys in Florida for 2014. Super Lawyers is an annual listing of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and
professional achievement. The attorneys and their respective categories are as follows:
Timothy A. Andreu: Business Litigation
Michael B. Colgan: Business Litigation
Sharon Docherty Danco: Mergers & Acquisitions
Robert B. Glenn: Bankruptcy: Business - Florida Top 100
Mark A. Hanley: Employment & Labor
Robert C. Rasmussen: Mergers & Acquisitions
Edwin G. Rice: Bankruptcy: Business
Alysa J. Ward: Employment & Labor
Robert B. Glenn is also included in the top 100 list for all of Florida Super Lawyers.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, selects attorneys through a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a statewide survey of
lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are
named by Super Lawyers.
<< Back
Copyright 2015 Glenn Rasmussen, P.A.
Site Map
Privacy Policy
http://www.glennrasmussen.com/about-the-firm/news/eight-shareholders-selected-to-the-2014-florida-super-lawyers-list.aspx
Disclaimer
Careers
(Page 11 of Total)
1/1
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page11of
of121
20
(Page
(Page12
1 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page22of
of121
20
(Page
(Page13
2 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page33of
of121
20
(Page
(Page14
3 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page44of
of121
20
(Page
(Page15
4 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page55of
of121
20
(Page
(Page16
5 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page66of
of121
20
(Page
(Page17
6 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page77of
of121
20
(Page
(Page18
7 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page88of
of121
20
(Page
(Page19
8 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page99of
of121
20
(Page
(Page20
9 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page10
10of
of121
20
(Page 21
10 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page11
11of
of121
20
(Page 22
11 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page12
12of
of121
20
(Page 23
12 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page13
13of
of121
20
(Page 24
13 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page14
14of
of121
20
(Page 25
14 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page15
15of
of121
20
(Page 26
15 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page16
16of
of121
20
(Page 27
16 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page17
17of
of121
20
(Page 28
17 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page18
18of
of121
20
(Page 29
18 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page19
19of
of121
20
(Page 30
19 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page20
20of
of121
20
(Page 31
20 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page21
1 of 11
121
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

En Banc
IVO QUEIROZ, an unmarried man,
)
)
Plaintiff-Counterdefendant/
)
Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
DANIEL HARVEY,
)
)
Defendant-Counterplaintiff/
)
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
_________________________________ )
Arizona Supreme Court

No. CV-08-0308-PR
Court of Appeals
Division One
No. 1 CA-CV 07-0309
Maricopa County
Superior Court
No. CV2005-004469
O P I N I O N
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

The Honorable Colin F. Campbell, Judge
The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge
AFFIRMED
________________________________________________________________
Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One
___ Ariz. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (App. 2008)
2008 WL 2058233 (May 15, 2008)
VACATED
________________________________________________________________
GUST ROSENFELD, P.L.C.
By
Charles W. Wirken
Attorneys for Ivo Queiroz
Phoenix
JENNINGS, STROUSS, & SALMON, P.L.C.

By
David B. Earl
David Brnilovich
Attorneys for Daniel Harvey
Phoenix
THOMAS, THOMAS & MARKSON, P.C.

Phoenix
By
Neal B. Thomas
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Association of Realtors,
West USA Realty, Inc., and John Hall & Associates
________________________________________________________________
1
(Page 32
21 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page22
2 of 11
121
R Y A N, Justice
1
In
this
opinion,
we
address
whether
court
may
consider a real estate agents inequitable conduct in deciding

if the agents principal is entitled to specific performance of
a contract for the sale of real estate.
We conclude that the
agents inequitable acts may be imputed to the principal whether

or not the principal knew of the agents misconduct.
I1
2
Daniel Harvey listed ten acres of land in Tonopah for
sale.
Through his agent, Charles Harrison, Ivo Queiroz offered
to purchase the land, along with an additional ten acres.
The
purchase offer called for a $1,000 earnest-money payment and a

closing date of February 15, 2005.
was
$150,000,
with
$68,000
due
finance the balance of $82,000.
The proposed purchase price

at
closing.
Harvey
was
to
A counteroffer, faxed the next
day and accepted by Queiroz, retained the closing date and the
earnest-money requirement, but changed escrow agents.
Harrison
faxed the contract to the escrow agent on December 10, but sent
no earnest money during the following week.
3
Harvey and his agent became concerned about Queirozs
Because this case was tried to the bench and findings of

fact were entered, we defer to the superior courts findings of
fact unless clearly erroneous.
Valley Med. Specialists v.
Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 367, 11, 982 P.2d 1277, 1281 (1999).
2
(Page 33
22 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
failure to deposit the earnest money.

Harrison were unavailing.
Harveys
agent
cancelled.
told
the
Page
Page23
3 of 11
121
Repeated efforts to reach
Finally, on Friday of that week,

escrow
agent
that
the
contract
was
Either that night or the next day, Harrison learned
that Harvey had cancelled the contract.
Nevertheless, on the
next Monday morning, Harrison took two money orders amounting to

$1,000 to a branch of the escrow company.
Several hours later,
Harveys written notice of the cancellation arrived at another

branch of the escrow agents office.2
Harveys agent returned
Harrisons earnest money, informing him that the contract had

been cancelled.
4
Queiroz sued Harvey, seeking specific performance of
the contract.
The superior court found that Harrison had acted
inequitably and thus denied Queiroz specific performance.
The
court determined that Harrison lied about the source of the

earnest money, testifying that it was Queirozs when in fact it
was Harrisons.
The court found that in providing the earnest
money Harrison either made an undisclosed loan to Queiroz or

commingled
his
own
money
with
Queirozs
funds.
The
court
The contract called for written notice before cancellation.

The superior court concluded that the failure to timely pay the
earnest money was a material breach.
The court of appeals,
however, concluded that payment of the earnest money before the
written notice of cancellation had been received cured the
breach. See Queiroz v. Harvey, __ Ariz. __, __, 18, 22, __
P.3d __, __ (App. 2008).
Harvey did not seek review of this
holding.
3
(Page 34
23 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page24
4 of 11
121
further found that Harrisons subterfuge went further when he

printed his name, rather than signing it, on the purchase offer
because he did not have the required earnest-money check, failed
to return phone calls, and raced to the escrow agent to deposit
the
funds,
Finally,
knowing
the
court
that
Harvey
found
that
had
cancelled
Harrison
had
the
contract.
not
testified
truthfully.
5
The court of appeals reversed.
__, 18, 22, __ P.3d at __.

fraudulent
or
dishonest
principal
for
purposes
acts
of
Queiroz, __ Ariz. at
The court held that an agents

could
an
not
equitable
be
attributed
defense
absent
personal involvement or knowledge of the principal.

31.
to
the
Id. at
The court concluded that it could not determine whether
Queiroz
knew
of
Harrisons
conduct
and
therefore
could
not
decide whether the superior court would have reached the same
result based solely on Harrisons misrepresentations about the
escrow
check.
Id.
further proceedings.
6
We
granted
at
32.
It
consequently
remanded
for
Id.
review
because
whether
an
agents
inequitable conduct is chargeable to the principal is an issue

of statewide importance and is likely to recur.
ARCAP 23(c).
We
5(3)
have
jurisdiction
under
Article
6,
Section
of
the
Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

12-120.24 (2003).
4
(Page 35
24 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page25
5 of 11
121
II
7
trial
courts
grant
or
refusal
of
performance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Statler, 20 Ariz. 81, 84, 176 P. 843, 844 (1918).
specific
Kimball v.
Queiroz does
not dispute that specific performance, although a routine remedy

in actions involving contracts for the sale of real property,
may properly be refused on the basis of unclean hands.
See
MacRae v. MacRae, 57 Ariz. 157, 161, 112 P.2d 213, 215 (1941)
(It is a cardinal rule of equity that [one] who comes into a
court of equity seeking equitable relief must come with clean
hands.).
Rather,
Queiroz
argues
that
mere
agency
relationship does not suffice to establish inequitable conduct

and that such conduct should not be imputed to an innocent
principal.
8
of
We reject these arguments.

agency
E.g.,
law,
an
Restatement
agents
(Third)
acts
of
Under ordinary principles
bind
Agency
the
agents
6.01
principal.
(2006)
(stating
general rule that principal may work through an agent to secure

contract with third party); id. at 1.01 (agent acts on the
principals behalf); see also id. at 4.01 (explaining that
manifestation
representation
of
by
assent
an
ratifies
agent
made
an
agents
incident
to
conduct).
or
contract
conveyance is attributed to a disclosed . . . principal as if

the principal made the representation directly when the agent
5
(Page 36
25 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
had
actual
conveyance
or
.
circumstances
affect
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
apparent
under
authority
Id.
which
principals
at
to
make
6.11.
legal
position
the
This
representations
enforce or rescind a contract.

9
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
in
Page
Page26
6 of 11
121
contract
includes
made
by
actions
an
or
the
agent
brought
to
Id. at cmt. a.
Other courts have similarly concluded that a principal
seeking
specific
performance
inequitable conduct.
may
be
bound
by
an
agents
E.g., Handelman v. Arquilla, 95 N.E.2d
910, 913 (Ill. 1951) (rejecting specific performance based on

agents material misrepresentation);
Alexander v. Hughes, 472
P.2d 818, 819-20 (Or. 1970) (affirming the denial of specific

performance when agent misled opposing party about nature of
document signed).
10
The
Restatement
and
the
cited
cases
are
consistent
with the duties both agents and principals owe to third parties
in the context of the sale of real property.
See Lombardo v.
Albu, 199 Ariz. 97, 100-01, 13-15, 14 P.3d 288, 291-92 (2000)
(noting common law and regulatory duties).
rule
that
the
consistent
principal
with
is
bound
long-established
by
his
In addition, the
agents
principles
of
conduct
equity.
is
See
Dawson v. McNaney, 71 Ariz. 79, 87, 223 P.2d 907, 912 (1950)
(equitable
justice
rule
and
will
not
perpetrate
be
a
applied
fraud);
to
defeat
Giovani
v.
the
ends
of
Rescorla,
69
Ariz. 20, 25, 207 P.2d 1124, 1127 (1949) (equity denies title to
6
(Page 37
26 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
property
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
obtained
concealments,
or
through
through
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
actual
fraud,
undue
Page
Page27
7 of 11
121
misrepresentations,
influence,
duress,
taking
advantage of ones weakness or necessities, or through any other

similar means or under any other similar circumstances).
of these cases stands for an unexceptionable rule:
Each
Principals
may not benefit from the inequitable conduct of their agents.

III
11
The court of appeals, however, declined to apply this
rule.
The
implicates
court
the
moral
equitable relief.
at __.
concluded
that
the
blameworthiness
unclean
of
the
hands
party
doctrine
who
seeks
Queiroz, __ Ariz. at __, 25, 31, __ P.3d
Thus, the court held that imputing inequitable conduct
of an agent to a principal is not appropriate absent a showing

that the principal knew of the agents misconduct.
court
found
support
for
this
proposition
Id.
principally
Arizona case and two cases from other jurisdictions.
in
The
one
None of
these cases, however, is apposite.

12
v.
For example, the court of appeals reasoned that Weiner

Romley,
94
conclusion.
Ariz.
40,
381
P.2d
581
(1963),
supported
its
In Weiner, this Court held that when inequitable
conduct was not willful, unclean hands would not apply.
Id.
at 42-43, 381 P.2d at 582-83.
The court of appeals understood
this
must
to
mean
that
principals
themselves
act
willfully.
Queiroz, __ Ariz. at ___, 29-30, __ P.3d at __.
The court
7
(Page 38
27 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page28
8 of 11
121
reasoned that if an individuals act must be willful for an

equitable defense to apply, then, a fortiori, a principal who
does not act at all, because his agent does, cannot be found to
have acted willfully.
Id. at 31.
Weiner, however, does not
speak to the issue in this case, which is whether an agents

conduct may be imputed to his or her principal.
13
Closer to the point, yet nevertheless distinguishable,
are Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co., 67 A. 339, 340-41

(N.J. 1907), and Associated Press v. International News Service,
240 F. 983 (S.D.N.Y. 1917).
In the former, the New Jersey court
simply rejected imputing the conduct of a defendants agent in a

prior transaction to the defendant in the separate transaction
before the court.
Vulcan Detinning, 67 A. at 341.
In this
case, however, the alleged misconduct occurred within the very

transaction that was the subject of the litigation.
14
one
Associated Press is also inapposite, as it addresses

companys
effort
to
defend
itself
against
charges
of
inequitable conduct by pointing out the inequitable conduct of

its opponents agents.
Queiroz
seeks
inequitable
contract.
specific
acts
240 F. at 984, 989.

performance
committed
by
his
by
own
Here, in contrast,
relying
agent
on
to
the
secure
very
the
Associated Press does not countenance employing the
inequitable conduct of ones own agent as a sword.
8
(Page 39
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page29
9 of 11
121
IV
15
Queirozs
ineffectual.
additional
arguments
are
equally
First, he claims that we should protect innocent
principals from the misconduct of the agents they choose to

hire.
There
are
cases
in
which,
as
matter
of
fact,
principal cannot be charged with the acts or knowledge of his or

her agent.
E.g., Restatement (Third) of Agency 6.10 cmt. b
(outlining situations in which purported principal may not be

bound by agent).
This is not such a case.
The principles of
agency discussed above refute Queirozs policy argument that we

should protect all principals from liability, especially given
that without Harrisons acts, the deal here would not have been
completed.
As
between
the
principal
who
has
retained
an
unscrupulous agent and an innocent third party who relies on the

agents misrepresentation, it is the third party who deserves
protection.
16
Queiroz also argues that, notwithstanding Harrisons
inequitable conduct, Harvey has suffered no harm and thus he

should
This
be
forced
claim,
of
to
perform
course,
is
the
belied
sale-and-financing
by
the
contract.
transaction,
which
requires Harvey not only to sell the property, but also to carry
the mortgage for Queiroz.
Thus, ordering specific performance
in this case would effectively place Harvey in a continuing
9
(Page 40
29 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
relationship
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
with
Queiroz.
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Cf.
Copylease
Corp.
Page
Page30
10of
of121
11
of
Am.
v.
Memorex Corp., 408 F. Supp. 758, 759 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (refusing

to
order
specific
performance
of
contracts
which
are
not
capable of immediate enforcement, but which require a continuing

series
of
acts
and
cooperation
between
the
parties
for
the
successful performance of those acts) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (applying California law).
V
17
In his response to the petition for review, Queiroz
preserved the issue of whether, assuming Harrisons conduct may

be
imputed,
superior
it
was
courts
actually
inequitable.
findings
that
We
Harrisons
defer
to
conduct
the
was
inequitable and that his statements and actions were dishonest

and misleading.
Valley Med. Specialists, 194 Ariz. at 367,
11, 982 P.2d at 1281.
Consequently, we are in no different
position than the court of appeals would have been in reviewing

the record.
26,
City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, ___,
201 P.3d 529, 535 (2009).
supports
the
inequitably.
superior
Harrisons
courts
We conclude that the evidence

finding
conduct
that
misled
Harrison
Harvey
acted
regarding
Queirozs capacity to go forward with the earnest-money payment

and concealed his potential inability to make payments on an
ongoing basis.
See Lombardo, 199 Ariz. at 100, 12-13, 14
P.3d at 291 (noting that the ability of the buyer to perform

10
(Page 41
30 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page31
11of
of121
11
goes to the heart of the transaction and that both principal

and agent have a duty to disclose).
VI
18
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
we
vacate
the
court
of
appeals opinion and affirm the judgment of the superior court.

Because the contract here requires the prevailing party to be
awarded reasonable attorneys fees, we grant Harveys request
for attorneys fees.
_______________________________________
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
CONCURRING:
_______________________________________
Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice
_______________________________________
Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice
_______________________________________
Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice
_______________________________________
W. Scott Bales, Justice
11
(Page 42
31 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
321of
of121
1
(Page 43
32 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
331of
of121
1
(Page 44
33 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
341of
of121
1
(Page 45
34 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
B18 (Official Form 18)(12/07)
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
351of
of121
2
United States Bankruptcy Court

District of New Mexico
Case No. 1011558j7
Chapter 7
In re: Debtor(s) (name(s) used by the debtor(s) in the last 8 years, including married, maiden, trade, and address):
Philip B. Stone
Charlotte A. Stone
P.O. Box 2626
P.O. Box 2626
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Last four digits of Social Security or other
Individual TaxpayerIdentification No(s)., (if any):
xxxxx5986
xxxxx6044
Employer's TaxIdentification No(s)., /Other No(s) (if any):
DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR
It appearing that the debtor is entitled to a discharge,
IT IS ORDERED:
The debtor is granted a discharge under section 727 of title 11 United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code).
BY THE COURT
Dated: 7/19/10
Robert H. Jacobvitz
United States Bankruptcy Judge
SEE THE BACK OF THIS ORDER FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
Case 10-11558-j7
Doc 20
Filed 07/19/10
Entered 07/19/10 05:00:29 Page

(Page
1 of46
35
2 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
362of
of121
2
FORM B18 continued (12/07)
EXPLANATION OF BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

IN A CHAPTER 7 CASE
This court order grants a discharge to the person named as the debtor. It is not a dismissal of the case and it
does not determine how much money, if any, the trustee will pay to creditors.
Collection of Discharged Debts Prohibited
The discharge prohibits any attempt to collect from the debtor a debt that has been discharged. For example, a
creditor is not permitted to contact a debtor by mail, phone, or otherwise, to file or continue a lawsuit, to attach wages
or other property, or to take any other action to collect a discharged debt from the debtor. [In a case involving
community property: There are also special rules that protect certain community property owned by the debtor's
spouse, even if that spouse did not file a bankruptcy case.] A creditor who violates this order can be required to pay
damages and attorney's fees to the debtor.
However, a creditor may have the right to enforce a valid lien, such as a mortgage or security interest, against
the debtor's property after the bankruptcy, if that lien was not avoided or eliminated in the bankruptcy case. Also, a
debtor may voluntarily pay any debt that has been discharged.
Debts That are Discharged
The chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay a debt that is discharged. Most, but
not all, types of debts are discharged if the debt existed on the date the bankruptcy case was filed. (If this case was
begun under a different chapter of the Bankruptcy Code and converted to chapter 7, the discharge applies to debts
owed when the bankruptcy case was converted.)
Debts That are Not Discharged.
Some of the common types of debts which are not discharged in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case are:
a. Debts for most taxes;
b. Debts incurred to pay nondischargeable taxes;
c. Debts that are domestic support obligations;
d. Debts for most student loans;
e. Debts for most fines, penalties, forfeitures, or criminal restitution obligations;
f. Debts for personal injuries or death caused by the debtor's operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft
while intoxicated;
g. Some debts which were not properly listed by the debtor;
h. Debts that the bankruptcy court specifically has decided or will decide in this bankruptcy case are not
discharged;
i. Debts for which the debtor has given up the discharge protections by signing a reaffirmation agreement in
compliance with the Bankruptcy Code requirements for reaffirmation of debts; and
j. Debts owed to certain pension, profit sharing, stock bonus, other retirement plans, or to the Thrift Savings
Plan for federal employees for certain types of loans from these plans.
This information is only a general summary of the bankruptcy discharge. There are exceptions to these
general rules. Because the law is complicated, you may want to consult an attorney to determine the exact
effect of the discharge in this case.
Case 10-11558-j7
Doc 20
Filed 07/19/10
Entered 07/19/10 05:00:29 Page

(Page
2 of47
36
2 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
371of
of121
3
(Page 48
37 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
382of
of121
3
(Page 49
38 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
393of
of121
3
(Page 50
39 of Total)
8/13/2014
Outlook.com Print Message
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Print USCA
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
401of
of121
8
Close
RE: Form submission from: Consumer Complaint Form

From: ConsumerInfo (ConsumerInfo@azag.gov)
Sent: Wed 8/13/14 6:20 PM
To: 'Ldms4@hotmail.com' (Ldms4@hotmail.com)
Dear Consumer, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail is to acknowledge that your consumer complaint has been received by the
Consumer Information & Complaints Unit of the Arizona Attorney Generals Office.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We will work as quickly as
possible to process your complaint; however, the initial processing can take 2-3
weeks. Please be assured that once the initial processing is complete, you will
receive additional written correspondence via U.S. mail regarding your complaint.
For future inquiries on your complaint, please contact our office and one of our
staff members will be happy to assist you in obtaining the information you need.
You can reach our office at:
602.542.5763 - Phoenix Area
520.628.6504 - Tucson Area
1.800.352.8431 - Toll Free outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties
Sincerely,
Consumer Information and Complaints Unit
Arizona Attorney General
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----Original Message----From: webmaster@azag.gov [mailto:webmaster@azag.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:25 AM
To: OnlineComplaints
Subject: Form submission from: Consumer Complaint Form
Full Name: Christopher Stoller

Street Address: P.O. Box 60645
City: Chicago
State: Illinois
Zip Code: 60660
https://blu173.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
(Page 51
40 of Total)
1/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
412of
of121
8
BestUSCA
N
umbe
rCase
to#14-5265
Ca
ll During
D
ay: 312
8
34 9717
Phone: 312-545-4554
E-mail Address: Ldms4@hotmail.com
Name: Western Progressive Arizona Inc./Ocwen Loan Servicing Arizona Street Address:
2002 Summit Blvd Suite
City: Alanta
State: Georgia 30319
Zip Code: 30319
Phone: 866 960 8299
E-mail Address:
Website Address: http://www.altisource.com/ May we send a copy of this to the
person or firm you are complaining against?
Yes
Please explain the entire circumstances surrounding your complaint below:
CHRISTOPHER STOLLER
P.O. BOX 60645
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60660
312-545-4554
Ldms4@hotmail.com
August 14, 2014
SERVICE LIST OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT
TO: RESPONDENTS
Ronald M. Faris
CEO/President
Ocwen Loan Servicing Arizona
1661 Worthington Road
West Palm Beach, Fl 33409
877-596-8580
www.ocwencustomers.com
William C. Erbey
Chairman of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.
http://www.altisource.com/
888-255-1791
William Shepro, Director
F. Brian Sachnidermman
Mel-Ling Mitchell
Roland Muller Ineichen
Timo Vatto,
W. Michael Linn
Michelle Esterman
Keven J. Wilcox, Esq.,
Joseph Davila
Mark Hynes
C Martin Cliff
Western Progressive Arizona,
2002 Summit Blvd, suite 600
Atlanta, Ga 30319
Western Progressive-Arizona, Inc.

1150 E. University Drive
Tempe, AZ 85281
(Page 52
41 of Total)
2/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
PhonUSCA
e:
866
-9
6082
99
stephanie.spurlock@altisource.com
http://www.altisource.com
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
423of
of121
8
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT

OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE
Formal notice is hereby served upon the parties listed in the Service List that I
am filing an objection to the Notice of the Trustee Sale (Exhibit 1) with the
Arizona Attorney General's Office, pursuant to the legally described trust
propertythat will be sold, pursuant to the power of sale under that certain Deed
of Trust dated 05/02/2006 and recorded on 05/09/2006 as Instrument No. 20060627298,
Book----Page---and recorded on as in the official records of Maricopa County,
Arizona.
I am objection to the fraudulent Notice of trustee Sale (Exhibit 1) filed by
Western Progressive- Arizona, Inc., with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office on
7/23/2014 Document no. 20140480249 announcing that the my property known as 28437
N. 112fth Way, Scottsdale, Az 85262-4725 will be sold at public auction to the
highest bidder. At the main entrance of the Superior Court Building 201 W.
Jefferson, Phoenix Az 85003, on 11/12/2014 at 12:30PM of said day. at 1,
Document 20140480249.
The Trustee has no power and/or authority to convey the deed of trust dated
05/02/2006 because Philip Stone quit claimed his interest to Christopher Stoller
Pension and Profit Sharing Plan Limited (CSPPSP) on September 19, 2008, recorded in
the Maricopa County Recorders Office 2008-0815422 on 09/22/08. The successor
trustee was divested of its power of sale after 09/22/08. On September 19, 2008,
Philip Stone transfers and conveys to CSPPSP a Bahamas Corporation, and/or
Christopher Stoller and/or Leo Stoller (collectively, Assignees), under the Law of
Assignments of Causes of Action, insofar as permitted by law, forever, any and all
causes of action, remedies, or claims, now or in the future, that Assignor CSPPSP
have against any party, not limited to financial institution, contractors,
builders, and their employees, affiliates, successors and assigns, et al., as well
as the right to prosecute such causes of action in the name of Assignor or
Assignees or any of them , and the right to settle or otherwise resolve such causes
of action as Assignees sees fit, regarding the following real property in Maricopa
County, State of Arizona:
Lot 3, Pinnacle Foothills, according to Book 398 of Maps, Page 50, and
Affidavit of Correction recorded in Document No. 96-0145582, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona.
Assessor's Parcel Number: 216-74-044
Commonly known as: 28437 N. 112th Way, Scottsdale, Az 85262.
Claim(s) shall mean any claim, liability, right, demand, suit, matter, obligations,
damage, loss, cost, action k,or cause of action, of every kind and description that
Assignor has or may have, including assigned claims, whether known or unknown,
asserted or unasserted, latent or patent, that is, has been, could reasonably have
been, or in the future might reasonably be asserted, by Assignor in any action or
proceeding in court, regardless of legal theory and regardless of the type of
amount of relief or damages claimed, against any, known or unknown, arising from or
in any way relating to said property.
A full Release and Full Re-conveyance of said Deed of Trust and all other debts in
(Page 53
42 of Total)
3/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
Page
Page
4e
of
of
8of
connUSCA
ec
tion
w
ith
s
ame, incl
ud
ing the
A
djustable Rat
e
Not
e12/14/2014
secured by
t
he 43
De
d121
Trust was filed with the Maricopa County Recorder Office
2014-0512240 08/04/14.
Notice(s) of Liz Pendens was filed on the subject real estate on 12/29/2008
2008-1090943 with the Maricopa Counter Recorders Office and again another Liz
Pendens was filed on 12/02/2013 2013-1025435.
CSPPSP, Christopher Stoller and Leo Stoller have served notice pursuant to the (1)
Three Day Notice of Rescission, (2) Three Year Notice of Rescission and (3) General
Claims Notice of Rescission or Nullification. (4) There are defects in the Trustee
Sale Notice (a) Philip B. Stone, as of 7/23/2014 does not owe a delinquency payment
of of $197,142.49. Nor does Philip B. Stone, as of July 25, 2014 owe unpaid
principle balance of $646,683.87,plus interest from 02/01/2008.
Philip B. Stone's promissory note secured by a Deed of trust and the adjustable
rate note together with the deed of trust securing same was canceled as a result of
the United States Bankruptcy Case 10-11558-17, District of New Mexico and the debt
discharge, July 19, 2010.
The former Trustee, Reconstruct Co NA, was not registered as a loan servicer,
broker with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions as of September 9,
2011 and pursuant to their Notice of Trustee Sale Arizona recorded in the Maricopa
Recorders Office 20110752511 on 09/09/2011 and lacked the authority to transact
business within the State of Arizona. The Trustee Sale Arizona was void ab initio
and canceled by the Trustee.
ALTISOURCE PROFOLIO SOLUTIONS S.A /Western Progressive Arizona Inc., Western
Progressive LLC., William Shepro, Director, F. Brian Sachnidermman, C. Martin
Cliff, William Erbey, herein after referred to as(WPAI) (Substitution Trustee) is
not registered with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions and is not
licensed as a broker or servicer of mortgages as of the date July 02, 2014 that
WPAI filed with the Maricopa Recorders Office its Substitution of Trustee (
20140433956).
Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Trustee of ARLP
Trust 3, s not registered with the Arizona Department of financial institutions and
is not licensed as a broker or servicer of mortgages as of the date July 02, 2014.
Nor are they registered with the Arizona Corporation Division and they do not have
a corporation certificate of authority to transact business within the State of
Arizona.
On July 21, 2014 WPAI filed their Notice Notice of Trustee Sale and Debt Validation
Notice, Statement of breach and non performance, and these documents were recorded
with the Maricopa Recorders Offices on July 23, 2014 20140480249.
The successor Trustee WPAI does not qualify as a Trustee of the deed of Trust in
the Trustees capacity as an escrow agent as required by A.R.S.
33-803 (A)(6) according to the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.
WAPI is not a registered Trustee, they have no license.
The statement of breach or non performance falsely claiming that Philip Stone is in
foreclosure because he is delinquent in payments is a false and misleading
statement, because Philip Stone debts have been discharged in Bankruptcy Case No.
10-11558-17 District of New Mexico. The Debt discharge date was July 19, 2010.
The beneficiary or substitute Trustee lacks the authority under the release and
(Page 54
43 of Total)
4/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
Page
44
of
of
121
8luding
fullUSCA
c
onve
ya
nce
o
f the Tru
st
ee Deed
a
nd the cancel
l
atio
n12/14/2014
of all of Page
de
bts
,5i
nc
the adjustable rate note, secured by the Deed of Trust and the Title of the Subject
Property being in the name of CSPPHP and cannot not be sold under the conveyance of
the Deed of Trust.
Pursuant to the Substitution of Trustee dated June 9th, 2014 Recorders Number
20140433956, Mel-Ling Mitchell, Contact Management Coordinator, is not an Officer
of Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and is a unauthorized robo
signer.
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP., (BAC) the successor to Countrywide Bank Na, was not
registered with the Arizona Corporation Division, was not registered as a Limited
Liability Partnership as of April 9, 2009. BAC was not registered with the Arizona
Department of Financial Institutions. BAC had no authority to convey any assignment
to RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A. or Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC.
On June 3rd, 2014, the Maricopa Country Recorders Office recorded a fraudulent
assignment The record beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust as a result of
the last (fraudulent) recorded assignment thereof is Christiana Trust, A Division
of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, not in its individual capacity but as
Trustee of ARLP Trust 3, by an unlawful instrument Recorded on June 3, 2014, in
Maricopa County Records at Recorder's No. 14-360515 c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
5720 Premier Park Dr West Palm Beach Fl 33407.
A representative of Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, who claimed to be an agent, Chirag
Patel, on March 26, 20141, informed Christopher Stoller, that he was required to
have insurance for his property pursuant to a residential mortgage and since
Christopher Stoller has refused to provide a copy of the insurance, Ocwen was
placing insurance on the subject property and would be charging $3,000 annually,
for a home owners insurance policy that would generally cost about $300.00 per
year.
The alleged successor Trustee WAPI did not perform due diligence as to who the
current owner of the subject property is and is attempting to unlawfully foreclose
on Stoller's property.
WAPI is not entitled to enforce the said note or mortgage, which has been released
with a full re-conveyance of the Deed Trust and cancellation of the promissory note
and the Adjustable Rate Note securing the Deed of Trust. See
Re-conveyance of said Deed of Trust, Maricopa County Recorder Office
2014-0512240 08/04/14.
Ocwen Loan Servicing Arizona, WAPI are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to
collect on a debt from Philip B. Stone that is not owed.
In the fraudulent Substitution of Trustee Document Recording Requested by Premium
Title Agency, Inc., filed in the Maricopa County Recorder's office on July 2, 2014
20140433956, states that The successor trustee (Western Progressive -Arizona,
Inc.) appointed herein qualifies as trustee of the trust Deed in the trustee's
capacity as an Insurance Company as required by ARS Section 33-803, Subsection (A)
(6). The above is a fraudulent statement.
As of August 7, 2014 Western Progressive -Arizona, Inc., is not registered with the
Arizona Department of Insurance to do business in Arizona as an Insurance Company
according to Ruth Ojeda.
(Page 55
44 of Total)
5/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
45
6of
of
121
8lliam
WAPIUSCA
(
also
k
now
n#14-5265
as Altiso
ur
ce Port
fo
lio SA Soluti
o
ns),
William D. Page
Sh
epr
o,
Wi
Erbey, Roland Muller Ineichen, Timo Vatto, W. Michael Linn, Michelle Esterman,
Keven J. Wilcox, Esq., Joseph Davila, Mark Hynes, breached their fiduciary duty to
the CCPS and Leo and Christopher Stoller, committing acts of gross negligence, Mal
practice, and Ocwen Loan Servicing Arizona, WAPI is liable for criminal land civil
remedies for attempted conversation, tortuous interference with the CSPPSP's
tenant, the Arizona and Illinois Consumer fraud and Deceptive Practice Act, Civil
Fraud, Aiding and Abetting, Slander of title,
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION/CONCEALMENT,
VIOLATION OF A.R.S. 13-2314.04, TORTUROUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS CONTRACTUAL
RIGHTS, CONVERSION, PARTICIPATION IN A RICO ENTERPRISE THROUGH A PATTERN OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY:18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962, CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN A PATTERN
OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY:
18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(D)
The lender does not own, control, possess, the note or the mortgage which
has been satisfied in full. The Title Agent(s), Premium Title Agency
Inc., Premium Title Services Inc., its officers, directors including but not
limited to Steven A. Nielsen, Donald A. O'Neill, Brian F. Schneiderman, Robert D.
Stile, Keven J. Wilcox2 (General Counsel) which may be the same as the Trustee, is
liable and also has insurance for errors and omissions for Title Insurance
Companies including the named agents, that issued the Policy and/or commitment will
have total liability for this fraudulent transaction to the extent it has knowledge
through its agents WAPI and/or Altisource Portfolio SA Solutions/WAPI is obligated
under Arizona State and Federal Law to immediately resend the said Notice of
Trustee Sale for November 12, 2014.
Under the State and Federal Law the promissory note and said Adjustable Rate Note
and the mortgage is now extinguished. You rights under the Trustee Deed have been
terminated.
Formal Notice is hereby served upon the Arizona Attorney General Office to forward
this Complaint to the named respondents.
Please confirm the retraction of the said Notice of Trustee Sale.
Dated 13TH day of August 2014
Christopher Stoller
State of Illinois )
) ss
County of Cook )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service of this document is being made to all of the parties listed below by
depositing it in an envelope addressed to the person(s) above shown, with proper
postage prepaid, via certified mail and depositing the envelope in the U.S. Mail at
Chicago, Illinois on August 13, 2014.
Christopher Stoller
(Page 56
45 of Total)
6/8
8/13/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
467of
of121
8
William C. Erbey
Chairman of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. Loretta E Lynch
William Shepro, Director U.S. Attorney
F. Brian Sachnidermman Eastern
District
of New York
Mel-Ling Mitchell Richard K. Hayes
Roland Muller Ineichen Kenneth M. Abell
Timo Vatto, 271 Cadman
Plaza
East, 7th Floor
W. Michael Linn Brooklyn, NY 11201
Michelle Esterman
Keven J. Wilcox, Esq., Benjamin
M.
Lawsky,
Joseph Davila New
York Superintendent of Financial Services
One State Street
Mark Hynes New
York, NY 10004-1511
C Martin Cliff
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. Ramona Elliott
Western Progressive Arizona, General Counsel
2002 Summit Blvd, suite 600 Executive Office for
U.S. Trustees
Altanta, Ga 30319 20
Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 8000
Washington, DC 20530
Complaint Department
Arizona Department of Insurance
2910 N. 44th Street, Ste. 210 (2nd Floor) Phoenix, AZ 85018-7269
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM HORNE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Phoenix Office
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
(602) 542-5025
Have you complained to the firm/agency/business? Yes What was their response? They
failed to respond Was an oral or written warranty given? Yes Did you sign any
documents? No Date of Transaction: 07/23/2014 Place of Transaction: Letter setting
a Notice of trustee Sale Total Amount of Damages: The Value Salesperson's Name:
Witness to Transaction:
Was the product or service advertised? : No If yes, indicate the date and how it
was advertised:
(Page 57
46 of Total)
7/8
8/13/2014
USCA
Case
#14-5265
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
478of
of121
8
Do yUSCA
ou
hav
eCase
an#14-5265
at
torney? N
oDocument
If yes, please provide the attorney's name and address:
Is any legal action pending? : No
List any other consumer agencies contacted:
May we provide your name and telephone number to the media in the event of an
inquiry about this matter? : Yes May we send a copy of your complaint to another
government agency for their review or investigation? : Yes Additional Comments: My
home is being unlawfully foreclosures upon. There is no debt owed. Please forward
my complaint to the appropriate agency.
Your Age: Over the age of 60
Military/Veteran Status:
How did you hear about our complaint form (please choose only one): Called Phoenix
AG Office Declaration 2: Christopher Stoller
Date: 08/14/2014
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.azag.gov/node/1112/submission/22960
(Page 58
47 of Total)
8/8
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
481of
of121
3
(Page 59
48 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
492of
of121
3
(Page 60
49 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
503of
of121
3
(Page 61
50 of Total)
8/16/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Print USCA
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
511of
of121
2
Close
Ocwen alleged Loan Number #7130908499 Philip B. Stone, 28437

N. 112th Way Scottsdale, Arizona 85262
From: << L>> (ldms40@gmail.com)
Sent: Sat 8/16/14 11:58 AM
To: hrd343@ocewn.com; william.shepro@altisource.com; William.Erbey@altisource.com;
businessdevelopment@altisource.com; chicago@sec.gov; atlanta@sec.gov; Ask Doj
(askdoj@usdoj.gov); 2020 abc (2020@abc.com); Assig cbs (assignment@cbsnews.com); editors
newsweek (editors@newsweek.com); editor weeklystandard (editor@weeklystandard.com); editor
usatoday (editor@usatoday.com); Editor Tribune (ctc-editor@tribune.com); Editor StLouisPaper
(siteeditor@stltoday.com); editor NewYork Times (executive-editor@nytimes.com);
webmaster@altisource.com
7 attachments
112th way forclosure.pdf (164.2 KB) , Affidavit Release Reconveyance.pdf (57.0 KB) ,
Consumer Complaint Form _ Arizona Attorney General.pdf (80.8 KB) , Florida Attorney General
- Contact Form.pdf (327.9 KB) , Arizona2 AG Complaint 8-13-14.odt (26.5 KB) , Letter2 to
WPAI.odt (32.6 KB) , Letter to Ocwen.odt (27.5 KB)
RE: #7130908499 Philip B. Stone, 28437 N. 112th Way Scottsdale, Arizona 85262
Mr. Chirag Patel
Confirming your telephonic conversation Thursday, August 21, 2014. You confirmed that the Notice of Trustee
dated July 23, 2014 and recorded at the Maricopa County Recorder's Office document Number
20140480249 violates the Fari Debt Collection Act by attempting to collect a debt of Philip B. Stone that was
discharged in a New Mexico Bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. Patel you stated that Ocwen is aware of the Deed
of Re-Conveyance by certified mail. That Ocwen has no lawful insterest in the property known as 28437 N.
112th Way Scottsdale, Arizona 85262 and Ocwen Loan and/or its agent Western Progressive-Arizona, Inc.,
will immediately forward Notice to: 28437 N. 112th Way Scottsdale, Arizona 85262 that the Notice of
Trustee's Sale for November 12, 2014. You stated that you would immediately email Ocwen Loan to confirm
that the Notice of Trustee Sale has been permanently canceled.
You failure to notify us that this unlawful attempt to collect a debt and the Trustee Sale for November 12, 2014
will subject you personally to liability and being named in a U.S. Federal Racketeering Lawsuit.
You have up and until Thursday August 21, 2014 to respond. Please see attached confirming
(Page 62
51 of Total)
1/2
8/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
522of
of121
2
documents
(Page 63
52 of Total)
2/2
12/14/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Print USCA
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
531of
of121
5
Close
Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025

From: Leo Stoller (ldms4@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 10/01/14 11:45 AM
To: lucy.morris@cfpb.gov (lucy.morris@cfpb.gov); jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov
(jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov); sellis@atg.state.il.us (sellis@atg.state.il.us); cara.petersen@cfpb.gov
(cara.petersen@cfpb.gov); kirsten.ivey-colson@cfpb.gov (kirsten.ivey-colson@cfpb.gov);
jstump@law.ga.gov (jstump@law.ga.gov)
Cc: William.Erbey@Ocwen.com (william.erbey@ocwen.com); ronald.faris@ocwen.com
(ronald.faris@ocwen.com); ronald.korn@ocwen.com (ronald.korn@ocwen.com);
william.lacy@ocwen.com (william.lacy@ocwen.com); wilbur.ross@ocwen.com
(wilbur.ross@ocwen.com); robert.salcetti@ocwen.com (robert.salcetti@ocwen.com);
barry.wish@ocwen.com (barry.wish@ocwen.com); timothy.hayes@ocwen.com
(timothy.hayes@ocwen.com)
15 attachments
wilcox complaint.doc (79.0 KB) , Letter to Ocwen.odt (27.5 KB) , William B. Shepro2
complaint.doc (79.0 KB) , Consumer Complaint Form _ Arizona Attorney General.pdf (80.8
KB) , Affidavit Release Reconveyance.pdf (57.0 KB) , Exhibit 2 Liz Pendens Objection 8-914.odt (29.3 KB) , Objection2 to trustee Sale.odt (32.1 KB) , email to Patel 8-15-14.pdf (118.5
KB) , Letter to WPAI.odt (32.8 KB) , wilcox email 8-16-14.pdf (447.6 KB) , Order of
Discharge.pdf (17.8 KB) , 112th way forclosure (1).pdf (164.2 KB) , Philip Bankruptcy
schedules.pdf (307.7 KB) , Receipt 8-14-14 collection complaint.pdf (119.2 KB) , 8-14-14 debt
collection complaint.pdf (164.7 KB)
Lucy Morris cfbp Deputy Director
Cara M. Petersen
Kirsten A. Ivey-Colson
Matthew F. Linter, Director Consumer Protection Div.
Jeffrey W. Stump, AG Georgia Department of Law jstump@law.ga.gov
Susan N. Ellis, Chief, Consumer Fraud, AG Illinois
Re: Ocwen violation of the Consent Decree, continuing to file fraudulent Notice(s) of Trustee Sales See
attached documents.
Dear Ms. Lucy Morris

Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No. 13-cv-02025. Ocwen has caused to be filed a fraudulent
Notice of Trustee Sale (Nov. 12,2014) on my family home located Scottsdale Arizona.
Ocwen and its third party agents Western Progressive Arizona, Inc., are attempting to foreclose on my family
home in which I do not owe any money. Ocwen through its third party agent has filed a fraudulent Notice of
(Page 64
53 of Total)
1/5
12/14/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
01/19/2015
Page
Page
2of
of121
5 owner,
Trustee
Sale Case
with
the
Arizona Maracopa
Counter
Recorders officeFiled:
which
is12/14/2014
attached, against
the54former
Philip Stone, of the said real estate, who's debts were discharged in bankruptcy.
Ocwen is in complete violation of the consent decree which is evidences by their latest Notice of Trustee Sale
documents which are attached. Ocwen is in contempt of court by the said filing.
I have contacted Ocwen, their third party agents, their attorneys, Robert R. Maddox, J.Riley Key, who are
aidding and abetting, Ocwen in their wrongful conduct (Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 799 N.E.2d 756
(Ill. App. Ct. 2003)) and Indirect Criminal Contempt of a criminal (Rule 42(b) is not to be tested by the more
stringent standards set for an indictment. See Bullock v. United States, 265 F.2d 683, 691-92 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 909 (1959)).
I have demanded that Ocwen and its attorneys Robert R. Maddox, J.Riley Key, take the necessary
remedial action and withdraw the Notice of Trustee Sale for November 12, 2014 and Ocwen and their
attorneys have thus far refused in violation of the said consent decree. . I have filed attorney disciplinary
complaints against their lawyers in Florida. See attached.
The Alabama Bar has advised me that if Ocwen's attorneys Robert R. Maddox, J.Riley Key do not
immediately take the necessary remedial action to advise their client Ocwen to issue a
letter permanently rescinding the Notice of Trustee Sale attached hereto, the Alabama bar will
seek disciplinary action against Robert R. Maddox, J.Riley Key and the Georgia Bar will seek
disciplinary action against Timothy M. Hayes, General Counsel to Ocwen.
I have contacted Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, Monitor Joseph Smith, who informed me
that I should contact your Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and make them aware of
Ocwen's violation of the consent decree, evidence by the attached fraudulent Notice of trustee Sale. Mr. Smith
also directed me to the respective State Attorney Generals who have an interest in Ocwen's violating the consent
decree.
I am requesting that you direct a letter immediately to Ocwen, its officers and directors demanding that Ocwen
issue a letter to Christopher Stoller advising that the Notice of Trustee Sale set for November 12, 2014 is
permanently vacated otherwise we will be forced to file a Petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt against all of
the officers, directors and attorneys who represent Ocwen (a criminal contempt petition filed under Rule 42(b) is
not to be tested by the more stringent standards set for an indictment. See Bullock v. United States, 265 F.2d
683, 691-92 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 909 (1959).
Please respond by October 5th, 2014.
Most Cordially,
/s/ Christopher Stoller

6045 W. Grand Avenue Apt 414
(Page 65
54 of Total)
2/5
12/14/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Chicago,
Illinois
60660
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
553of
of121
5
312-834-9717
email Ldms4@hotmail.com
cc:
Timothy Hayes timothy.hayes@ocwen.com
General Counsel
Ocwen Financial Corporation
1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
cc: William C. Erbey, Executive Chairman, Ocwen Board of Directors

Ronald M. Faris, Ocwen Board of Directors ronald.faris@ocwen.com
Ronald J. Korn, Ocwen Board of Directors ronald.korn@ocwen.com
William H. Lacy, Ocwen Board of Directors william.lacy@ocwen.com
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Ocwen Board of Directors wilbur.ross@ocwen.com
Robert A. Salcetti, Ocwen Board of Directors robert.salcetti@ocwen.com
Barry N. Wish, Ocwen Board of Directors barry.wish@ocwen.com
Mitra Hormozi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
________________________________________________________________________
From: info@mortgageoversight.com
To: ldms4@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:05:31 +0000
Mr. Stoller:
Thank you for your email. The Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight has been created to assist Monitor
Joseph Smith in his court-appointed role to oversee the participating banks compliance with the national mortgage
settlement (NMS). The Monitors role is dictated by Exhibit D of the Consent Judgments with Ocwen and,
unfortunately, we are unable to intervene on behalf of individual homeowners. However, there are some
(Page 66
55 of Total)
3/5
12/14/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
564of
of121
5
resources
available
to
help homeowners
and your
best option wouldFiled:
beFiled:
to continue
working Page
with
your
states
Attorney General. In addition, you may also contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at
http://www.consumerfinance.gov or 855-411-2372.
Thank you.
Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight

P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919)825-4748
From: ldms4@hotmail.com
To: info@mortgageoversight.com
CC: lucy.morris@cfpb.gov; jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov; gary.tan@dc.gov
Subject: Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:33:01 -0500
:Joseph
A. Smith Jr

301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1801
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-825-4748
Email: info@mortgageoversight.com
(Page 67
56 of Total)
4/5
12/14/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
575of
of121
5
Re: Ocwen
isCase
violating
the ConsentDocument
decree
in Case
No. 13-cv-0202
Mr. Smith
Ocwen caused a fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale of my family home in Scottsdale Arizona. I have advised
Ocwen and their third party representatives to immediately withdraw the Notice of Trustee Sale scheduled for
November 12, 2014 see attached documents, notices of complaints, attorney disciplinary complaints etc.
Please direct Ocwen to vacate the said Notice of Trustee Sale which is scheduled for Nov. 12, 2014 see
attached. The said notice of Trustee Sale is a fraudulent document filed with the Maricopa County Recorders
Office in clear violations of numerous terms of the said consent decree which Ocwen signed and you are
responsible for enforcing. The accompanying documents support my claims. I need you help to enforce the
Consent Decree against Ocwen, because they have ignored all of my correspondence.
If you need any other documents, please call me 312-283-9717
Most Cordially,
Christopher Stoller
6045 w Grand Ave Apt 414
Chicago, Illinois 60639
(Page 68
57 of Total)
5/5
10/16/2014
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Print USCA
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
581of
of121
9
Close
RE: Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025

From: Ombudsman (Ombudsman3@ocwen.com)
Sent: Thu 10/16/14 4:27 PM
To: ldms4@hotmail.com (ldms4@hotmail.com)
3 attachments
Stone Adjustable Rate Note.pdf (449.8 KB) , Stone Deed of Trust.pdf (1437.4 KB) , Stone
Ocwen PRH.pdf (12.3 KB)
Dear Christopher Stoller:

Ocwen Loan Servicings office of the CEO and President acknowledges receipt of your e-mail
correspondence dated October 1, 2014. As the Consumer/Customer Advocate, the Office of the
Ombudsman welcomes the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.
Attached are copies of the signed original Adjustable Rate Note and Deed of Trust signed by Mr.
Philip B. Stone indicating that the loan originated on May 2, 2006, with Countrywide Bank, N.A.
Ocwen commenced servicing this loan from Bank of America (BOA) on September 8, 2012, with
the last payment satisfied on the loan being February 1, 2008 payment.
Please be advised that Quit Claim Deed only transfers the title of the property to the person named
in the deed but it does not relinquish the person who signed the Adjustable Rate Note from their
responsibilities to a lender. However, please note that you did not sign the original collateral
documents.
A review of the loan indicates that Mr. Stone filed for protection under Bankruptcy Chapter 7 on
March 30, 2010, which was eventually discharged on July 19, 2010. As the bankruptcy has been
discharged, Mr. Stone is no longer personally liable for the debt. However, this is still a valid lien
and Ocwen may foreclose its security interest in the Real Property under the terms of the original
loan documents if the required payments are not received in a timely manner.
Please note foreclosure proceedings can be initiated if the loan is delinquent by three (3) or more
payment. Consequently, foreclosure proceedings were initiated on the loan on February 21, 2014; at
that time last payment satisfied on the loan was February 1, 2008 payment.
(Page 69
58 of Total)
1/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
592of
of121
9
Attached for your review is the Ocwen Payment Reconciliation History (PRH), which indicates that
Ocwen has not received any payments on the loan since they commenced servicing of the loan and
the resulting loan status.
In order to permanently remove Mr. Stones name from the loan, you may opt to either refinance or
assume the loan. In order to confirm if the loan is assumable and request for an Assumption
Package, you may send in a written request along with a clear copy of the Driver's License to the
fax number at (407) 737-5802. Please note that Ocwen is not in a position to refinance the loans
directly. However, you may wish to approach other financial institutions, in order to refinance the
loan or if required you may contact Ocwens Customer Care Center at (800) 746-2936 for further
assistance regarding this matter.
As of the date of this email, the last payment satisfied on the loan is the February 1, 2008 payment.
The foreclosure is presently on hold. Please note Ocwen will continue to service the loan according
to the terms and conditions of the signed loan documents in order to protect its lien position and
interest in the property.
If you and/or Mr. Stone require any further assistance regarding the loan, you may contact Ocwens
Customer Care Center.
The Office of the Consumer Ombudsman is an advocate in ensuring that Ocwen's servicing of the
loan remains fair, reasonable and proper. If you still have unresolved issues, please feel free to
contact this Office at (800) 390-4656.
Sincerely,
Nilekha Ghate
Consumer Account Analyst
Office of the Consumer Ombudsman
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(Page 70
59 of Total)
2/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
NMLS#1852
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
603of
of121
9
Please Note: This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. However, if
you have an active bankruptcy case or have received an Order of Discharge from a Bankruptcy Court, the following
Notice Regarding Bankruptcy applies.
Notice Regarding Bankruptcy: Please be advised that if you are part of an active Bankruptcy case or if you have
received an Order of Discharge from a Bankruptcy Court, this letter is in no way an attempt to collect either a prepetition, post petition or discharged debt. If your bankruptcy case is still active, no action will be taken in willful
violation of the Automatic Stay. If you have received an Order of Discharge in a Chapter 7 case, any action taken by us
is for the sole purpose of protecting our lien interest in the underlying mortgaged property and is not an attempt to
recover any amounts from you personally. Finally, if you are in an active Chapter 11, 12 or 13 bankruptcy case and an
Order for Relief from the Automatic Stay has not been issued, you should continue to make payments in accordance
with your plan.
P.O. Box 785061, Orlando, FL 32878-5061

Telephone: (800) 390-4656
Fax: (866) 771-5152
NMLS # 1852
From: Faris, Ronald

Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 1:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Leo Stoller" <ldms4@hotmail.com>
To: "lucy.morris@cfpb.gov" <lucy.morris@cfpb.gov>, "jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov"
<jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov>, "sellis@atg.state.il.us" <sellis@atg.state.il.us>,
(Page 71
60 of Total)
3/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
614of
of121
9
"cara.petersen@cfpb.gov"
<cara.petersen@cfpb.gov>,
"kirsten.ivey-
colson@cfpb.gov" <kirsten.ivey-colson@cfpb.gov>, "jstump@law.ga.gov"

<jstump@law.ga.gov>
Cc: "Erbey, William" <William.Erbey@ocwen.com>, "Faris, Ronald"
<Ronald.Faris@ocwen.com>, "ronald.korn@ocwen.com"
<ronald.korn@ocwen.com>, "william.lacy@ocwen.com"
<william.lacy@ocwen.com>, "wilbur.ross@ocwen.com"
<wilbur.ross@ocwen.com>, "robert.salcetti@ocwen.com"
<robert.salcetti@ocwen.com>, "barry.wish@ocwen.com"
<barry.wish@ocwen.com>, "Hayes, Timothy M" <Timothy.Hayes@ocwen.com>
Lucy Morris cfbp Deputy Director
Cara M. Petersen
Kirsten A. Ivey-Colson
Matthew F. Linter, Director Consumer Protection Div.
Jeffrey W. Stump, AG Georgia Department of Law jstump@law.ga.gov
Susan N. Ellis, Chief, Consumer Fraud, AG Illinois
Re: Ocwen violation of the Consent Decree, continuing to file fraudulent Notice(s) of
Trustee Sales See attached documents.
Dear Ms. Lucy Morris

Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No. 13-cv-02025. Ocwen has caused
to be filed a fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale (Nov. 12,2014) on my family home
located Scottsdale Arizona.
Ocwen and its third party agents Western Progressive Arizona, Inc., are attempting
to foreclose on my family home in which I do not owe any money. Ocwen through
its third party agent has filed a fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale with the Arizona
Maracopa Counter Recorders office which is attached, against the former owner,
Philip Stone, of the said real estate, who's debts were discharged in bankruptcy.
Ocwen is in complete violation of the consent decree which is evidences by their
latest Notice of Trustee Sale documents which are attached. Ocwen is in contempt
of court by the said filing.
I have contacted Ocwen, their third party agents, their attorneys, Robert R.
Maddox, J.Riley Key, who are aidding and abetting, Ocwen in their wrongful
conduct (Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 799 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App. Ct.
2003)) and Indirect Criminal Contempt of a criminal (Rule 42(b) is not to be tested
by the more stringent standards set for an indictment. See Bullock v. United States,
265 F.2d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 909 (1959)).
I have demanded that Ocwen and its attorneys Robert R. Maddox, J.Riley Key,
(Page 72
61 of Total)
4/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
625of
of121
9
take
the#14-5265
necessary remedial
action
and withdraw the
Notice
of Trustee SalePage
for
November 12, 2014 and Ocwen and their attorneys have thus far refused in
violation of the said consent decree. . I have filed attorney disciplinary complaints
against their lawyers in Florida. See attached.
The Alabama Bar has advised me that if Ocwen's attorneys Robert R. Maddox,
J.Riley Key do not immediately take the necessary remedial action to advise their
client Ocwen to issue a letter permanently rescinding the Notice of Trustee Sale
attached hereto, the Alabama bar will seek disciplinary action against Robert R.
Maddox, J.Riley Key and the Georgia Bar will seek disciplinary action against
Timothy M. Hayes, General Counsel to Ocwen.
I have contacted Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, Monitor Joseph Smith,
who informed me that I should contact your Office of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and make them aware of Ocwen's violation of the consent
decree, evidence by the attached fraudulent Notice of trustee Sale. Mr. Smith also
directed me to the respective State Attorney Generals who have an interest in
Ocwen's violating the consent decree.
I am requesting that you direct a letter immediately to Ocwen, its officers and
directors demanding that Ocwen issue a letter to Christopher Stoller advising that the
Notice of Trustee Sale set for November 12, 2014 is permanently vacated
otherwise we will be forced to file a Petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt against
all of the officers, directors and attorneys who represent Ocwen (a criminal contempt
petition filed under Rule 42(b) is not to be tested by the more stringent standards set
for an indictment. See Bullock v. United States, 265 F.2d 683, 691-92 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 360 U.S. 909 (1959).
Please respond by October 5th, 2014.
Most Cordially,
/s/ Christopher Stoller

6045 W. Grand Avenue Apt 414
312-834-9717
email Ldms4@hotmail.com
(Page 73
62 of Total)
5/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
636of
of121
9
cc:
Timothy Hayes timothy.hayes@ocwen.com
General Counsel
Ocwen Financial Corporation
1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
cc: William C. Erbey, Executive Chairman, Ocwen Board of Directors

Ronald M. Faris, Ocwen Board of Directors ronald.faris@ocwen.com
Ronald J. Korn, Ocwen Board of Directors ronald.korn
@ocwen.com
William H. Lacy, Ocwen Board of Directors william.lacy
@ocwen.com
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Ocwen Board of Directors wilbur.ross@ocwen.com
Robert A. Salcetti, Ocwen Board of Directors robert.salcetti@ocwen.com
Barry N. Wish, Ocwen Board of Directors barry.wish@ocwen.com
Mitra Hormozi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
________________________________________________________________________
From: info@mortgageoversight.com
To: ldms4@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Ocwen is violating the consent decree Case No 13-cv-02025
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:05:31 +0000
Mr. Stoller:
Thank you for your email. The Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight has been
created to assist Monitor Joseph Smith in his court-appointed role to oversee the
participating banks compliance with the national mortgage settlement (NMS). The
Monitors role is dictated by Exhibit D of the Consent Judgments with Ocwen and,
unfortunately, we are unable to intervene on behalf of individual homeowners.
However, there are some resources available to help homeowners and your best
option would be to continue working with your states Attorney General. In addition,
you may also contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at
http://www.consumerfinance.gov or 855-411-2372.
(Page 74
63 of Total)
6/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
647of
of121
9
Thank you.
________________________________
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919)825-4748
________________________________
From: ldms4@hotmail.com
To: info@mortgageoversight.com
CC: lucy.morris@cfpb.gov; jeremy.shorbe@azag.gov; gary.tan@dc.gov
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:33:01 -0500
:Joseph A. Smith Jr<http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/joseph-smith-jr>

301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1801
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-825-4748
Email: info@mortgageoversight.com<mailto:info@mortgageoversight.com>
Re: Ocwen is violating the Consent decree in Case No. 13-cv-0202
(Page 75
64 of Total)
7/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Mr.
Smith
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
658of
of121
9
Ocwen caused a fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale of my family home in Scottsdale

Arizona. I have advised Ocwen and their third party representatives to immediately
withdraw the Notice of Trustee Sale scheduled for November 12, 2014 see
attached documents, notices of complaints, attorney disciplinary complaints etc.
Please direct Ocwen to vacate the said Notice of Trustee Sale which is scheduled
for Nov. 12, 2014 see attached. The said notice of Trustee Sale is a fraudulent
document filed with the Maricopa County Recorders Office in clear violations of
numerous terms of the said consent decree which Ocwen signed and you are
responsible for enforcing. The accompanying documents support my claims. I need
you help to enforce the Consent Decree against Ocwen, because they have ignored
all of my correspondence.
If you need any other documents, please call me 312-283-9717
Most Cordially,
Christopher Stoller
6045 w Grand Ave Apt 414
<wilcox complaint.doc>
<Letter to Ocwen.odt>
<William B. Shepro2 complaint.doc>
<Consumer Complaint Form _ Arizona Attorney General.pdf>
<Affidavit Release Reconveyance.pdf>
<Exhibit 2 Liz Pendens Objection 8-9-14.odt>
<Objection2 to trustee Sale.odt>
<email to Patel 8-15-14.pdf>
(Page 76
65 of Total)
8/9
10/16/2014
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
<Letter
to
WPAI.odt>
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
669of
of121
9
<wilcox email 8-16-14.pdf>

<Order of Discharge.pdf>
<112th way forclosure (1).pdf>
<Philip Bankruptcy schedules.pdf>
<Receipt 8-14-14 collection complaint.pdf>
<8-14-14 debt collection complaint.pdf>
******************************************************************************************
This E-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not
constitute a waiver of any right, privilege or exemption. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply E-mail and
permanently delete this message from your system without reproducing or disclosing it to any third party. While Ocwen Financial Corporation and its
subsidiaries take reasonable precautions to prevent transmission of software viruses, we cannot guarantee the same and we therefore disclaim liability for
any damage sustained by you or any third party as a result thereof
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
This E-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not
constitute a waiver of any right, privilege or exemption. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply E-mail and
permanently delete this message from your system without reproducing or disclosing it to any third party. While Ocwen Financial Corporation and its
subsidiaries take reasonable precautions to prevent transmission of software viruses, we cannot guarantee the same and we therefore disclaim liability for
any damage sustained by you or any third party as a result thereof
******************************************************************************************
(Page 77
66 of Total)
9/9
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
671of
of121
7
(Page 78
67 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
682of
of121
7
(Page 79
68 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
693of
of121
7
(Page 80
69 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
704of
of121
7
(Page 81
70 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
715of
of121
7
(Page 82
71 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
726of
of121
7
(Page 83
72 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
737of
of121
7
(Page 84
73 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page74
1 of 18
121
(Page 85
74 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page75
2 of 18
121
(Page 86
75 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page76
3 of 18
121
(Page 87
76 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page77
4 of 18
121
(Page 88
77 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page78
5 of 18
121
(Page 89
78 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page79
6 of 18
121
(Page 90
79 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page80
7 of 18
121
(Page 91
80 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page81
8 of 18
121
(Page 92
81 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page82
9 of 18
121
(Page 93
82 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page83
10of
of121
18
(Page 94
83 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page84
11of
of121
18
(Page 95
84 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page85
12of
of121
18
(Page 96
85 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page86
13of
of121
18
(Page 97
86 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page87
14of
of121
18
(Page 98
87 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page88
15of
of121
18
(Page 99
88 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page89
16of
of121
18
(Page
(Page100
89 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page90
17of
of121
18
(Page
(Page101
90 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page91
18of
of121
18
(Page
(Page102
91 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page92
1 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
4 of 28
103
92 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page93
2 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
5 of 28
104
93 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page94
3 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
6 of 28
105
94 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page95
4 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
7 of 28
106
95 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page96
5 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
8 of 28
107
96 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page97
6 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page

(Page
(Page
9 of 28
108
97 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page98
7 of 17
121
Entered 06/11/10 16:04:38 Page(Page

(Page
10 of 109
28
98 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page99
8 of 17
121

(Page
11 of 110
28
99 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Case 10-11558-j7
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
100
9 of
of17
121

12 of 111
100
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page101
10 of 17
121

13 of 112
101
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page102
11 of 17
121

14 of 113
102
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page103
12 of 17
121

15 of 114
103
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page104
13 of 17
121

16 of 115
104
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page105
14 of 17
121

17 of 116
105
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page106
15 of 17
121

18 of 117
106
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page107
16 of 17
121

19 of 118
107
28 of Total)
USCA
USCACase
Case#14-5265
#14-5265
Case 10-11558-j7
Document
Document#1532722
#1527076
Doc 18
Filed 06/11/10
Filed:
Filed:01/19/2015
12/14/2014
Page
Page108
17 of 17
121

20 of 119
108
28 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
109
1 of 5
121
(Page 120
109 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
110
2 of 5
121
(Page 121
110 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
111
3 of 5
121
(Page 122
111 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
112
4 of 5
121
(Page 123
112 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
113
5 of 5
121
(Page 124
113 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
114
1 of 8
121
(Page 125
114 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
115
2 of 8
121
(Page 126
115 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
116
3 of 8
121
(Page 127
116 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
117
4 of 8
121
(Page 128
117 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
118
5 of 8
121
(Page 129
118 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
119
6 of 8
121
(Page 130
119 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
120
7 of 8
121
(Page 131
120 of Total)
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#14-5265
#14-5265 Document
Document
#1532722
#1527076
Filed:
Filed:
01/19/2015
12/14/2014 Page
Page
121
8 of 8
121
(Page 132
121 of Total)
Case 04-03875-5-SWH Doc 103 Filed 07/07/10 Entered 07/07/10 16:28:30 Page 1 of
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 13
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 07 day of July, 2010.
________________________________________
Stephani W. Humrickhouse
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
IN RE:
CASE NO.
CRAIG L. ADAMS and

MONICA L. ADAMS,
04-003875-5-SWH
DEBTORS
ORDER FINDING OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

IN CONTEMPT OF THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION
AND THE COURTS ORDER OF MAY 23, 2008
AND AWARDING DAMAGES AND SANCTIONS
The matter before the court is the chapter 13 debtors motion for Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
(Ocwen) to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for violating the terms of an order
entered in this court on May 23, 2008, which 1) declared that all mortgage payments due from the
debtors to Ocwen were current as of that date and 2) enjoined any action to collect sums discharged.
The motion for show cause was filed on September 12, 2008, and the hearing on that motion was
continued multiple times at the request of the parties. A hearing ultimately took place in Raleigh,
North Carolina, on May 26, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court announced that it had
found Ocwen in contempt of the May 23, 2008 order, and took the damages issues under
(Page 133 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 2 of 13
advisement. The court requested counsel to provide it with the parties respective damages
calculations, and both parties have done so.
Background
The debtors filed a petition under chapter 13 on October 26, 2004. Ocwen, the debtors
mortgage servicer, was included on their schedules as a secured creditor holding a first lien on the
debtors residence. The debtors discharge was entered on April 25, 2008. On April 29, 2008, the
debtors filed a motion seeking a declaration that all payments due from the debtors to Ocwen on
their residential mortgage were current (the Mortgage Declaration Motion). Ocwen was properly
served with the Mortgage Declaration Motion, but did not respond.1 The May 23, 2008 order
entered as a result of that motion declared the Ocwen indebtedness current and also provides:
Ordered that in the event the holder of the mortgage, the current servicer or
any subsequent assignee or holder of the mortgage debt attempts to collect any of
these discharged principal payments, interest, fees or expenses, such action shall be
deemed to be a willful violation of the discharge injunction and contempt of the
orders of this Court; and that such action shall give the right to the Debtors to pursue
a proceeding before this Court for contempt and appropriate sanctions and such other
state and federal statutory remedies as may be available to the Debtors and that this
Court specifically retain jurisdiction over such claim or claims.
In re Adams, Order Declaring Mortgage Payments Current, Case No. 04-03875-5-ATS (May 23,
2008). The debtors represent that they were, in fact, current at the time of the entry of the order.
Ocwen contends that the debtors may not have been current at that time, but agrees that the issue
is resolved, with finality, by entry of the May 23, 2008 order, which Ocwen did not appeal.
The motion was served by regular mail on Ocwen at two addresses in Orlando, Florida,
and on Ocwens counsel in Charlotte, North Carolina. A second certificate of service, filed on
May 8, 2008, states that on May 7, 2008, additional copies of the motion were served on Ocwen
at the Florida addresses, this time by certified mail.
2
(Page 134 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 3 of 13
During the summer of 2008, the debtors obtained an appraisal of their residence and
attempted to refinance their mortgage. They were turned down when, upon request of the proposed
new lender, Ocwen transmitted a payoff statement and loan history that was replete with serious
errors, most notably its report that the loan on the debtors residence was in foreclosure. The parties
agree that the loan was not then, and had never been, in foreclosure.
Counsel for the debtors
brought the errors to Ocwens attention in a letter dated August 20, 2008, and requested that Ocwen
correct them by 1) recalculating the loan from the date of the May 23, 2008 order; 2) correctly
applying the payments made, and 3) issuing a correct payoff statement. Debtors Mot. to Show
Cause, Ex. B.
At the hearing, Ms. Adams testified that in addition to the letter her attorney sent to Ocwen,
she also contacted Ocwen during the summer of 2008 to request the corrections, and Ocwen
informed her that it was unaware of any discharge entered in the bankruptcy case. In response,
Ms. Adams contacted her attorney and arranged to have him fax the discharge order and May 23,
2008 order to Ocwen. When Ms. Adams checked the status of her loan after having caused Ocwen
to be provided with the bankruptcy documents, she determined that the loan continued to be reported
in a foreclosure status. Ms. Adams again contacted her attorney, and the bankruptcy documents
were faxed again. Once again, Ocwen did not respond.
Faced with Ocwens failure to rectify its reporting, and its resulting effect on their ability to
refinance their home, the debtors reopened the case and filed the motion to show cause, on
September 12, 2008, to which Ocwen responded on September 30, 2008 by generally requesting a
hearing while it investigates the claims made by the [debtors]. On November 10, 2008, the
hearing was continued on Ocwens motion. Since the motion to show cause was filed, this matter
(Page 135 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 4 of 13
has been continued no less than thirteen times upon the parties representations that they were
attempting to reach an agreement to resolve the show cause motion. Ocwen has never filed a
response to the show cause motion, nor denied violation of the May 23, 2008 Order or the discharge
injunction. Ocwen has not offered an explanation in mitigation of its conduct at any point in this
matter. It has instead allowed its conduct to speak for itself.
Civil Contempt
The discharge injunction set forth in 11 U.S.C. 524 operates as an injunction against the
commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect,
recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not such discharge
is waived. 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2). The May 23, 2008 order clearly deemed the debt current as of
that date and specifically prohibited actions contrary to that conclusion, i.e. the collection of fees,
costs and other amounts related to a non-current loan. The court ruled at the hearing that Ocwen was
in contempt of both the discharge injunction and the May 23, 2008 order, and the basis of that ruling
is set forth herein.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit articulated the standard to establish civil
contempt in Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations
omitted), as follows:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or
constructive knowledge; (2) . . . that the decree was in the movants favor;
(3) . . . that the alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree,
and had knowledge (at least constructive knowledge) of such violations; and
(4) . . . that [the] movant suffered harm as a result.
Each of these elements must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 301
(construing Colonial Williamsburg Found. v. The Kittinger Co., 792 F. Supp. 1397, 1405-06 (E.D.
(Page 136 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 5 of 13
Va. 1992), affd, 38 F.3d 133, 136 (4th Cir. 1994)). It is not disputed that the courts order of
May 23, 2008 is a valid decree of which Ocwen had actual knowledge. The Mortgage Declaration
Motion was served upon Ocwen and its counsel of record on May 8, 2008, in accordance with the
certificate of service filed by debtors counsel. The discharge order was served by the clerks office
on all parties appearing on the creditor matrix, either by mail or electronically.2 The uncontradicted
testimony of Ms. Adams is that she had a telephone conversation with a representative of Ocwen
concerning her discharge and the May 23, 2008 order, and that Ocwen was supplied additional
copies of the discharge order and the May 23, 2008 order by her counsel during the summer of 2008.
Both Ocwen and its counsel received notice of both the discharge and the May 23, 2008 order as
exhibits to the show cause motion served on them on September 12, 2008. Counsel for Ocwen
began to receive electronic notice of all filings in the case on September 30, 2008.
Most
importantly, Ocwen did not dispute actual knowledge of both orders at the hearing.
The May 23, 2008 order was in the debtors favor in that it established that their mortgage
payments were deemed current and specifically set forth that a violation of the order would be
sanctionable. Ocwen not only violated the terms of that decree by continuing to assess discharged
principal, fees and costs, but did so, knowingly, over a prolonged period of time even after such
violations were brought to its attention by: 1) debtors counsel, 2) the female debtor, and 3) the
filing of the show cause motion. The debtors testimony indicated that they suffered harm as a result
of Ocwens violation of both the May 23, 2008 order and the discharge injunction. They were
unable to refinance their home at market rates because their credit report erroneously showed their
The ordinary course of practice in the Eastern District of North Carolina is for the
discharge order to be served, through the clerks office, on all parties appearing on the creditors
matrix.
5
(Page 137 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 6 of 13
Ocwen loan in foreclosure; they incurred attorneys fees to attempt to rectify the erroneous reporting
and bring the matter to the courts attention; they incurred appraisal fees in their futile refinancing
efforts; they spent time out of court trying to resolve the show cause motion and time in court during
the hearing; and their credit was damaged by the detrimental reporting.
In the specific context of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction, bankruptcy courts
increasingly also assess whether a creditors actions evidence willfulness. See, e.g., In re Dendy,
396 B.R. 171,178 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2008); In re Cherry, 247 B.R. 176,187 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2000).
The Dendy court held that to hold a creditor in contempt [for violation of the discharge injunction],
Debtors must demonstrate that the creditor willfully violated the discharge injunction, which is
proved by showing that the creditors knew that the discharge injunction was invoked and intended
the act which violated the injunction. 396 B.R. at 178; see also Workman v. GMAC Mortgage,
LLC (In re Workman), 392 B.R. 1890 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2007). In Cherry, the court construed the
test established by the Eleventh Circuit in In re Hardy, 97 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 1996), wherein that
court of appeals held that under 105, a defendant could be found in contempt for a violation of the
discharge injunction if it (1) knew that the [discharge injunction] was invoked and (2) intended the
actions which violated the [injunction]. Hardy, 97 F.3d at 1390, quoted in Cherry, 247 B.R. at 187;
see also Almond v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Almond), 2007 WL 1345224 at *5 (Bankr. M.D.N.C.
2007) . In contrast to the standard for civil contempt, finding a willful violation of the discharge
injunction appears to rest on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard. Cherry, 247 B.R.
at 188 n.18.
At present there is no clear rule in the Fourth Circuit as to whether an alleged violation of
the discharge injunction requires willfulness on the creditors part, but the Hardy rule has found
(Page 138 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 7 of 13
increasing acceptance by other courts, including courts in this circuit. Almond, 2007 WL 1345224
at *5. This court accordingly assumes, but does not decide, that knowledge and intent, as outlined
above, are components of a determination whether the creditors violation of the discharge
injunction was willful and in contempt of the injunction. And, as to this inquiry as well, the
undisputed facts establish by not only a preponderance of the evidence but also by the higher
standard of clear and convincing evidence that Ocwen knew the discharge injunction was invoked
and intended its actions in violation of it.
There is no question whatsoever that Ocwens actions establish civil contempt of the courts
order. At the hearing, the court was presented with no evidence that Ocwen has taken any action
to correct its records or the reports it makes to credit companies regarding the debtors loan, either
prior to or after receiving the debtors motion to show cause. During the period from at least the
filing of the debtors motion to show cause and the hearing on May 26, 2010, the court finds that
Ocwen has been in knowing, willful, and flagrant violation of both the discharge injunction and this
courts May 23, 2008 order.
Damages
A bankruptcy court has not only the inherent authority to enforce its orders, but also the
statutory authority, under 11 U.S.C. 105(a), to issue any order, process, or judgment that is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
This authority
includes the issuance of sanctions as necessary, and encompasses both the courts authority to
enforce the order of May 23, 2008 and, also, necessarily includes orders imposing sanctions for
violating the discharge injunction. In re Barbour, 77 B.R. 530, 532 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1987); see
also In re Workman, 392 B.R. at 194 (citing multiple recent cases in which bankruptcy courts
(Page 139 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 8 of 13
invoked power under 105(a) to sanction parties who violated the discharge injunction). Thus,
while 524 does not explicitly authorize an award of monetary damages for violation of the
discharge injunction, damages for those violations as well as violations of an order of the court
may be awarded under 105(a). See, e.g., Workman, 392 B.R. at 195.
The duration of time over which Ocwen has maintained an apparent disconnect between
its actions and the inevitable result of them is appalling. It has been 25 months since entry of the
May 23, 2008 order and 21 months since the filing of the debtors motion to show cause. Ocwen
has taken no action to correct its balance or credit reporting. Its response to the courts request for
its contentions regarding damages further illuminates Ocwens apparent inability to grasp the
seriousness of its actions and the repercussions of them. Ocwen contends that the sole damages that
should be assessed against it are: $400 for the refinancing appraisal, and $1500 in attorneys fees.
Ocwen submits that any and all damages suffered by the [Adams] are fairly resolved by payment
of those sums. Ocwen contends that the debtors took little action to mitigate any damage because
they made only one attempt to refinance the loan, even though it is ludicrous to suggest that such
an effort could possibly have garnered the debtors a refinanced mortgage on more attractive terms,
or been anything other than a fruitless and humiliating exercise.
In addition, Ocwen says it is and will update its credit reports and give the debtors a copy
of the email communication showing that it has done so. That Ocwen still proposes to correct its
reporting, and has not yet given proof of having done so, is mind-boggling. As the final component
of Ocwens proposed resolution of this matter, it would restate the principal balance of the loan as
$75,000 as of June 1, 2010 and modify the terms of the loan to provide an interest rate of 5%
beginning June 1, 2010. In accordance with its proposal, Ocwen would retain the original, high
(Page 140 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 9 of 13
interest rate of 10.8% over the almost-two years in which it erroneously reported the debtors
mortgage as in foreclosure, which, in effect, prohibited the debtors refinancing at market levels.
Ocwen does not dispute that it has, from late 2007 through virtually all of 2008 and well into
2009, reported the Adams mortgage as being in foreclosure, despite the fact that no foreclosure
proceeding ever was commenced. The statements Ocwen sent to the debtors show that it has
regularly assessed foreclosure costs and fees, and applied the debtors payments to those costs and
fees instead of to the principal. Most recently, Ocwen informed the Adams by letter dated May 26,
2010, in response to the Adams inquiry regarding the credit history of their loan over the most
recent 12 months, that it had reported the loan as in foreclosure for May, June, July and August of
2009. All during that time, Ocwen purportedly was working with the debtors to modify their loan
terms as a result of the original erroneous reporting. Ocwen either intended to hold the debtors
hostage to its glacial (and unfruitful) negotiations, or concluded that it could knowingly disregard
the responsibilities with which it was charged by both the Bankruptcy Code and the May 23, 2008
order of this court. That it did so, with actual knowledge, for such a prolonged period of time is
especially egregious. Ocwens cavalier attitude toward the discharge injunction, the terms of an
order of this court, and the effect of its actions on the debtors is wholly unacceptable. The fact that
Ocwen is unwilling to acknowledge the seriousness of this matter even today carries significant
weight with the court.
As the court informed the parties at the conclusion of the show cause
hearing, sanctions are warranted in this matter.
It is obvious that only significant monetary
sanctions will get Ocwens attention.

The court now turns to the appropriate sanctions for such violations. The trustees brief, in
which he describes Ocwens proffer of damages as woefully inadequate, recommends entry of an
(Page 141 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 10 of 13
order awarding as compensatory damages a declaration that the debtors debt to Ocwen is satisfied
in full and cancelling Ocwens lien, along with attorney fees and a punitive component of $1000
. Although the court will not adopt that recommendation in whole, it will take guidance from it.
1) Compensatory Damages
Ocwen has acknowledged that the debtors are entitled to reimbursement of $400 for the
appraisal in connection with the attempted 2008 refinancing, and $1500 for attorneys fees. The
courts very conservative estimate of the value of the debtors time trying to sort through and correct
Ocwens statements, together with the value of their time in court and compensation for the
embarrassment of having false, defamatory information published about them, supports a total award
of $2500 in compensatory damages, plus attorneys fees of $1500. Ocwen also will be assessed
attorneys fees payable to the trustee for his preparation and court time in the amount of $750.
An accurate determination of the balance owing Ocwen by the debtors is essential to finally
resolve the issues between the parties. The court requested, and received, contentions by both
parties concerning the present mortgage balance. The debtors supplied their counsels affidavit
which claimed that the correct balance, using the contract 10.8% rate, through April 30, 2010, was
$71,954. Using a 6% interest rate in 2008, a 5.5% interest rate in 2009 and a 5% interest rate in 2010
yields a balance of $63,702 according to the debtor.
Ocwen submitted the affidavit of Manager Trial Preparation/Discovery, Chomie Neil. The
affidavit indicates that Ocwen contends that the balance due on the mortgage as of July 1, 2010, is
$77,360.13. Ocwen applied the contract rate of interest of 10.8% in its calculations.
Inasmuch as the 10.8% contract rate is above market, in accordance with the unchallenged
proffer of debtors counsel, and that the continued improper reporting on the part of Ocwen prohibits
10
(Page 142 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 11 of 13
the debtors from refinancing the loan at market rate, the court will modify the interest rate as part
of the debtors compensatory damages to 6% - the highest interest rate offered by the debtors at the
hearing - as a reasonable market rate for the time period of May 23, 2008 through July 1, 2010.
Accepting Ocwens principal amount owing as of May 23, 2008 of $76,426.43, and applying a 6%
interest rate with a $831.88 monthly payment,3 with $50.59 going into escrow, the approximate
payoff on July 1, 2010, would be $65,373.12. The court will, therefore, set the balance owing on
July 1, 2010 at $65,373.12.
2) Punitive Damages
The court finds it not only appropriate to award punitive damages, but necessary. Ocwen
has given every indication that it is and will remain indifferent to the statutory significance of the
discharge injunction and to the express terms of the May 23, 2008 order, unless it is compelled to
take note. See Cherry, 247 B.R. 176, 189-90 (discussing cases within the Fourth Circuit in which
punitive damages for contempt, and violation of the discharge injunction, were in issue). As the
Cherry court points out, the standard by which courts assess the propriety of an award of punitive
damages varies, but tends to require some indication of egregious conduct, malevolent intent,
or clear disregard of the bankruptcy laws in other words, some element indicative of a specific
intent to violate an order or discharge injunction. Under any of these measurements, Ocwens
intentional, unfounded, prolonged violation of the discharge injunction and this courts order
warrants punitive sanctions.
Eight hundred thirty-one dollars and eighty-eight cents ($831.88) is the regular
contractual monthly payment. The debtors actually averaged eight hundred sixty-five dollars
and ninety-two cents ($865.92) each month during the period after May 23, 2008.
11
(Page 143 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 12 of 13
An appropriate measure of punitive damages for Ocwens violation of the discharge

injunction and the courts order of May 23, 2008 is a sanction in the amount of $66,300. This
amount represents $100 per day from September 12, 2008, which is the date on which Ocwen was
served with the debtors motion to show cause, through the date of entry of this order. These
damages will not accrue during the fourteen days following the date of entry of this order, but will
resume, if necessary, at $100 per day, as outlined below, if Ocwen does not fully comply with the
terms that follow. A punitive sanction of $100 per day for Ocwens actions over the duration of this
matter is commensurate with its offense. The significant total derives from the duration of the
offense, which was decidedly within Ocwens own control.
Accordingly, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC shall pay FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1500) in attorneys fees and expenses
to DOUG WICKHAM, counsel for the debtors, P.O. Box 527, Raleigh, NC, 27602-0527.
No later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
shall pay SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($750) in attorneys fees and expenses to the
standing chapter 13 trustee in this case, JOHN F. LOGAN, P.O. Box 61039, Raleigh, NC, 276611039.
shall pay TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) in compensatory damages and
expenses to CRAIG L. AND MONICA L. ADAMS, 2150 Highway 97, Zebulon, NC 27597.
shall pay SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($66,300), as a punitive
sanction, to CRAIG L. AND MONICA L. ADAMS, 2150 Highway 97, Zebulon, NC 27597.
12
(Page 144 of Total)
13
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 13 of 13
shall provide proof to the debtors counsel, the trustee, and to the court that the following actions
have been taken:
1)
Ocwen has reported to all three major credit reporting companies that the debtors
loan with Ocwen was in bankruptcy from the debtors petition date through the date of discharge;
was current from the date of discharge; and remains current as of the date of this order;
2)
Ocwen has adjusted its records to reflect that the debtors have a principal balance
remaining, as of July 1, 2010, of $65,373.12, to be paid at 6% interest, fixed rate, over the remaining
life of the loan.
In the event that Ocwen fails to comply with the payment of any of the damages awarded
herein within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, said sum shall be applied as a setoff against
the amount owing to Ocwen and secured by the mortgage. Upon failure of Ocwen to comply with
such payments, the debtors will supply the court with a verified statement attesting to such failure
and the court will provide the debtors with an order to be recorded in the Wake County Register of
Deeds Office setting forth the set off and the new balance.
For each day after the expiration of fourteen (14) days after the date of entry of this order,
if any provision of this courts order remains unsatisfied, additional punitive damages will be
assessed against Ocwen in the amount of $100 per day, payable to the Clerk of Court, 300
Fayetteville Street, Suite 209, P.O. Box 1441, Raleigh, NC 27602, until all terms of this order are
satisfied.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
13
(Page 145 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 11
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed January 13, 2015.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00932-CV
RUBY YARBROUGH AND WILBURN E. YARBROUGH, Appellants
V.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION III, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV-0069412
OPINION
In an issue of first impression, we must decide whether an affirmative
defense of forgery, supported by an affidavit alleging that the defendants
signatures on a deed of trust were forged, raises a genuine issue of title intertwined
with the issue of possession sufficient to deprive a justice court of jurisdiction in a
forcible detainer action.
We hold that it does.
The courts below lacked
jurisdiction in this forcible detainer action because determining the right to

possession necessarily required the resolution of a title dispute. We reverse the
(Page 146 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 2 of 11
trial courts judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of
jurisdiction.
I.
BACKGROUND
Household Finance Corporation III filed a complaint for forcible detainer

and original petition in justice court to evict Ruby and Wilburn Yarbrough from
their home. The justice court record contains a deed of trust purportedly signed by
the Yarbroughs, as borrowers, to secure a loan from Ameriquest Mortgage
Company. The deed of trust allows the trustee to foreclose on the real property
that is the subject of this lawsuit, and if so, the borrowers are required to surrender
possession. According to the deed of trust, If possession is not surrendered,
Borrower or such person shall be a tenant at sufferance and may be removed by
writ of possession or other court proceeding.
Household Finance purchased the property at a non-judicial foreclosure sale
and obtained a substitute trustees deed conveying the property to Household
Finance.
Household Finance initiated this forcible detainer action to obtain
possession of the property from the Yarbroughs.
The justice court signed a
judgment awarding possession to Household Finance, and the Yarbroughs

appealed to the county court.
The Yarbroughs filed a plea to the jurisdiction and an amended plea alleging
that the foreclosure sale was void because the deed of trust was forged and void.
The Yarbroughs filed an affidavit from Ruby, in which she testified, The deed of
trust on which the purported foreclosure sale was based and that led to this eviction
lawsuit, was not signed by my husband or me, and was a forgery. She testified
further, I understand that people associated with Ameriquest Mortgage forged
signatures on many loans, and the Deed of Trust on which the foreclosure sale was
based leading to this eviction would be one of them. Finally, she reiterated that
2
(Page 147 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 3 of 11
the deed of trust was not signed by me or my husband. The Yarbroughs also
filed with their amended plea a copy of their petition in a Texas district court,
where the Yarbroughs alleged that the deed of trust was forged. The Yarbroughs
sought damages for wrongful eviction, slander of title, and other causes of action,
and they sought a judgment for title to the property.
The county court denied the pleas, and the Yarbroughs amended their
answer to assert an affirmative defense of forgery. Ultimately, the county court
signed a final summary judgment awarding Household Finance possession of the
property. The court granted the Yarbroughs request to set a supersedeas bond,
and this appeal followed.
II.
JURISDICTION
In their first issue, the Yarbroughs contend the justice and county courts
lacked jurisdiction in this forcible detainer action because there was a genuine
issue regarding title intertwined with the issue of possession.
The title issue
concerns whether a tenancy was created by the deed of trust and associated
foreclosure sale when the deed of trust was allegedly void due to forgery.
Household Finance contends the deed of trust creates a tenancy at sufferance,
which generally supports jurisdiction in a forcible detainer action, but Household
Finance does not address the merits of the Yarbroughs forgery argument. 1
A.
Standard of Review
Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we
review de novo. Salaymeh v. Plaza Centro, LLC, 264 S.W.3d 431, 435 (Tex.
1
Responding to the Yarbroughs second issue concerning summary judgment, Household

Finance claims that the Yarbroughs presented no signed affidavit or documentary evidence to
support [their] affirmative defense of forgery. However, Rubys signed affidavit was filed with
the amended plea to the jurisdiction.
3
(Page 148 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 4 of 11
App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Tex. Dept of Parks & Wildlife v.
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)). The issue is fundamental and may be
raised for the first time on appeal. Id. If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the
existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the
parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court
is required to do. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. [D]ue to the special jurisdictional
limitations imposed on justice courts, a plea to the jurisdiction in an eviction case
may be based on an affirmative defense raised in the defendants pleadings that the
trial court cannot resolve apart from determining title.
Gibson v. Dynegy
Midstream Servs., L.P., 138 S.W.3d 518, 522, 524 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 2004,
no pet.) (defendant raised issue of adverse possession in defensive pleading, and
thus, issue of title was so integrally linked that the justice court could not have
decided possession without first deciding title).
B.
Jurisdiction in Forcible Detainer Actions

An action for forcible detainer is a summary, speedy, and inexpensive
remedy for the determination of who is entitled to the possession of premises.

Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. 1936); see also Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of
City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006). The only issue to be
resolved in a forcible detainer action is the right to immediate possession of the
property; the merits of title are not adjudicated. Salaymeh, 264 S.W.3d at 435.
Justice courts do not have jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate title to land, and
neither does a county court exercising appellate jurisdiction in a forcible detainer
action. Id.
When there are issues concerning both title and possession, the issues may
be litigated in separate proceedings in different courts with appropriate jurisdiction.
Id. at 436. However, when a forcible detainer action presents a genuine issue of
4
(Page 149 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 5 of 11
title so intertwined with the issue of possession that a trial court would be required
to determine title before awarding possession, then a justice court lacks jurisdiction
to resolve the matter. See Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, No. 14-1400194-CV, S.W.3d , 2014 WL 5791549, at *3 (Tex. App.Houston [14th
Dist.] Nov. 6, 2014, no pet. h.) (op. on rehg); Bittinger v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No.
14-10-00698-CV, 2011 WL 4793828, at *2 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Oct.
11, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911
S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).
Accordingly, a justice court is not deprived of jurisdiction merely by the existence
of a title dispute; it is deprived of jurisdiction only if resolution of a title dispute is
a prerequisite to determination of the right to immediate possession. Salaymeh,
264 S.W.3d at 435.
C.
Landlord-Tenant Relationships and Deeds of Trust

A forcible detainer action requires proof of a landlord-tenant relationship.
Haith v. Drake, 596 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ
refd n.r.e.); Dent v. Pines, 394 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. Civ. App.Houston 1965,
no writ). Although such a relationship is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction, see
Academy Corp. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.
Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied), the lack of such a relationship indicates
that the case may present a title issue. See, e.g., Pinnacle Premier Props., 2014
WL 5791549, at *3 n.9.
Like the Ameriquest deed of trust here, a deed of trust may include a
tenancy-at-sufferance clause that creates a landlord-tenant relationship when the
property is foreclosed. See id. at *34. 2 Under these circumstances, a defendants
2
Household Finance agrees that it must ultimately prove in a forcible detainer action that
the deed of trust signed by [the Yarbroughs] established a landlord-tenant relationship between
5
(Page 150 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 6 of 11
complaints about defects in the foreclosure process generally do not require a

justice court to resolve a title dispute before determining the right to immediate
possession, and the justice court has jurisdiction. See, e.g., id. at *3; Glapion v.
AH4R I TX, LLC, No. 14-13-00705-CV, 2014 WL 2158161, at *2 (Tex. App.
Houston [14th Dist.] May 22, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Maxwell v. U.S. Bank
Natl Assn, No. 14-12-00209-CV, 2013 WL 3580621, at *23 (Tex. App.
Houston [14th Dist.] July 11, 2013, pet. dismd w.o.j.) (mem. op.).
D.
Forgery and the Necessity of Resolving Title

Household Finance relies on the familiar principle that a deed of trusts
tenancy-at-sufferance clause allows a justice court to resolve the issue of

possession independent of title issues. However, in every deed-of-trust case this
court has reviewed, including those cited by Household Finance, the defendants
did not challenge the validity of the original deed of trust establishing the tenancyat-sufferance relationship.
The defendants challenged defects related to the
foreclosure sale and conditions precedent contained within the deed of trust, but
the evidence was undisputed regarding (1) the existence of a deed of trust
containing a tenancy-at-sufferance clause, and (2) the occurrence of a foreclosure
sale, which triggered the tenancy-at-sufferance clause. See, e.g., Pinnacle Premier
Props., 2014 WL 5791549, at *3 (no intertwined title issue when the defendants
title dispute was based entirely on contentions that the foreclosure sale was
conducted improperly and that the lender had assigned the note to another bank);
Gardocki v. Fed. Natl Mortg. Assn, No. 14-12-00921-CV, 2013 WL 6568765, at
*4 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (no
the parties. See U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. Freeney, 266 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Tex. App.Dallas
2008, no pet.), cited in Maxwell v. U.S. Bank Natl Assn, No. 14-12-00209-CV, 2013 WL
3580621, at *23 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] July 11, 2013, pet. dismd w.o.j.) (mem.
op.).
6
(Page 151 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 7 of 11
intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged that conditions precedent to the
foreclosure were not satisfied, such as the plaintiffs failure to provide notice of the
foreclosure and a demand to vacate, or the holders failure to indorse an insurance
check); Maxwell, 2013 WL 3580621, at *23 (no intertwined title issue when the
defendant alleged that he was excused from paying the note because the bank had
breached certain conditions of the deed of trust, and the foreclosing party was not
entitled to enforce the note; Regardless of whether the bank adhered to the deed
of trust before Maxwell defaulted, it is undisputed that the bank foreclosed.
Regardless of who could technically enforce Maxwells note, it is undisputed that
the bank bought the property at a foreclosure sale.); Woodfork v. Bank of Am., No.
14-12-00927-CV, 2013 WL 5637751, at *2 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Oct.
15, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (right to possession could be adjudicated without
resolving whether the underlying note was usurious or whether the lenders
acceleration was proper); Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 14-12-00431-CV,
2013 WL 1928776, at *3 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] May 9, 2013, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged invalid
assignments and other improprieties related to the foreclosure process); Bittinger,
2011 WL 4793828, at *23 (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged
defects regarding the foreclosure sale such as the banks lack of authority to
foreclose). 3
Household Finance cites the following cases in support of its jurisdictional argument,
but all have distinguishing facts: Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-0400452-CV, 2006 WL 510338, at *34 & n.4 (Tex. App.Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence
that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank
One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 6871 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined
title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the
defendant stipulated that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note
secured by a deed of trust, the bank foreclosed and purchased the property, and the deed of trust
provided that [the defendant] and all other occupants of the property became tenants in
7
(Page 152 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 8 of 11
When there is no dispute that the parties agreed to a tenancy relationship in

the event of foreclosure, the tenancy relationship provides an independent basis for
resolving the issue of possession. See, e.g., Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 712. But here, the
Yarbroughs contend that Household Finances claim of a tenancy relationship
cannot be sustained on a forged deed of trust because such a deed is void ab initio,
a nullity, and passes no title. See Johnson v. Coppel, No. 01-09-00392-CV, 2012
WL 344757, at *67 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(forged deed of trust is void and passes no title); Commonwealth Land Title Ins.
Co. v. Nelson, 889 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ
denied) (A forged deed is void ab initio and inoperative. . . . Thus, when a
document is void or void ab initio, it is as if it did not exist because it has no effect
from the outset.); 1st Coppell Bank v. Smith, 742 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tex. App.
Dallas 1987, no pet.) (A forged deed, or deed of trust, is void, and does not pass
title to land.), overruled on other grounds by Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc.,
52 S.W.3d 671, 678 (Tex. 2000).
Accordingly, the Yarbroughs argue that a forged deed of trust cannot
establish a tenancy-at-sufferance relationship between the Yarbroughs and
Household Finance. This case, therefore, is more akin to those in which the parties
sufferance following a foreclosure sale); Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattle Co., L.C., 61
S.W.3d 555, 55658 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2001, pet. dismd w.o.j.) (no intertwined title
issue when it was undisputed the defendant executed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance
clause, and she alleged a lack of proper notice of the foreclosure and a lack of a proper
opportunity to cure any default; these were mere foreclosure irregularities); Rice v. Pinney, 51
S.W.3d 705, 71112 (Tex. App.Dallas 2001, no pet.) (no intertwined title issue based on mere
fact that the defendants brought a separate suit in district court; [I]n this case the [defendants]
agreed that a foreclosure pursuant to the deed of trust established a landlord and tenant-atsufferance relationship between the [parties].); Haith v. Drake, 596 S.W.2d 194, 19697 (Tex.
Civ. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ refd n.r.e.) (no title issue when it was undisputed that
a buyer would not obtain title until payment in full of the purchase price, and the buyer had not
fully performed); see also Scott, 90 S.W.2d at 81819 (defendants could not challenge the
validity of the foreclosure sale, but [n]o contention is made that the vendors lien notes are not
valid and binding).
8
(Page 153 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 9 of 11
disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Cf. Valdez v. Gonzalez

Equities, Ltd., No. 04-12-00466-CV, 2013 WL 3871063, at *23 (Tex. App.San
Antonio July 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (intertwined title issue when the parties
agreed that they signed a contract for deed but disputed whether the defendant was
a purchaser under the contract or became a tenant-at-will at some point); Hopes v.
Buckey Retirement Co., No. 13-07-00058-CV, 2009 WL 866794, at *45 (Tex.
App.Corpus Christi Apr. 2, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (intertwined title issue
when the parties disputed the enforceability of a contract purportedly creating a
lien and deed of trust for the defendants property; the plaintiff foreclosed,
obtained a substitute trustees deed, and claimed a tenancy relationship, but failed
to introduce the deed of trust into evidence); Gibson, 138 S.W.3d at 52224
(intertwined title issue when the plaintiff claimed that the defendant entered her
property pursuant to a written rental agreement and occupied the property as a
tenant at sufferance, but the defendant asserted that it acquired title by adverse
possession); see also Yarto v. Gilliland, 287 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tex. App.Corpus
Christi 2009, no pet.) (intertwined title issue when the parties disputed whether a
landlord-tenant or buyer-seller relationship existed). Similarly, in In re Gallegos,
the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that there was an intertwined title issue
when the defendant claimed that the transaction creating the tenancy relationship
was void under the Texas Constitution. See No. 13-13-00504-CV, 2013 WL
6056666, at *5 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi Nov. 13, 2013, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.); see also Mitchell, 911 S.W.2d at 171 (intertwined title issue when the
defendant claimed the substitute trustees deed was void and had brought suit in
district court to set aside the non-judicial foreclosure sale).
9
(Page 154 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 10 of 11
Regarding forgery in particular, in Dass, Inc. v. Smith, the Dallas Court of

Appeals upheld the district courts temporary injunction of a forcible detainer
action because the action required the resolution of a title dispute. 206 S.W.3d
197, 201 (Tex. App.Dallas 2006, no pet.). There was undisputed evidence that
Falcon Transit had leased real property from Dass for several years, but the parties
disputed the nature of the relationship thereafter. Id. at 199. The terms of the lease
provided that the tenancy would continue month-to-month at the expiration of the
lease, but Falcon Transits owner claimed that he purchased the property from
Dass and introduced into evidence a document purportedly signed by the parties
establishing a sale of the property. Id. Dasss representative testified that he did
not sign the sales agreement and that his signature was a forgery. Id. Because the
parties disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and a fact finder
would need to resolve whether the purported sales agreement passing title was
forged, the determination of the right to immediate possession necessarily required
resolution of a title dispute. See id. at 201. The justice court lacked jurisdiction.
See id.
Because the Yarbroughs contend the deed of trust and resulting substitute
trustees deed are void due to forgery, they have raised a genuine issue of title so
intertwined with the issue of possession as to preclude jurisdiction in the justice
court. A prerequisite to determining the immediate right to possession will be
resolution of the Yarbroughs title dispute concerning forgery of the deed of trust.
Accordingly, the justice and county courts lacked jurisdiction.
The Yarbroughs first issue is sustained.
10
(Page 155 of Total)
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
III.
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 11 of 11
CONCLUSION
Having sustained the Yarbroughs first issue, we reverse the trial courts
judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of
jurisdiction.
/s/
Sharon McCally
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and McCally.
11
(Page 156 of Total)
1/18/2015
Feds expand charges against Chicago criminal defense attorney - Chicago Tribune
USCA Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 1 of 3
Feds expand charges against Chicago criminal defense

attorney
By Jason Meisner
Chicago Tribune
JANUARY 16, 2015, 7:25 PM
ederal prosecutors hav e ex panded the charges against Chicago criminal defense attorney Beau
Brindley , say ing he intentionally had witnesses lie from the stand in fiv e criminal trials, submitted
false statements in a grand jury proceeding and ev en lied to a federal judge by claiming his client was too
sick to take part in his defense.
The 21 -count superseding indictment made public Friday accused Brindley , 36, of perjury and
obstruction of justice schemes going back to 2008. The indictment also charged for the first time his law
partner, Michael Thompson, with participating in some of the alleged misconduct.
Brindley has denied wrongdoing, telling the Tribune in an August interv iew he was "confident that the
truth will come out" when the case goes to trial. His attorney , Cy nthia Giacchetti, did not respond Friday
to requests for comment.
According to the charges, Brindley coached witnesses to lie under oath in cases ranging from distributing
heroin to possessing illegal guns and sending interstate threats. In some cases, Brindley went so far as to
write out v ersions of his anticipated questioning and make the client memorize the answers before he took
the stand, the charges alleged.
Brindley had instructed one client, Richard Harrington, to falsely testify that a .40-caliber Smith &
Wesson found in his v ehicle during a drug arrest did not belong to him, the indictment alleged.
Despite the testimony , a federal jury conv icted Harrington, and U.S. District Judge Amy St. Ev e sentenced
him to 22 y ears in prison, records show.
According to the charges, Brindley and Thompson also obstructed a 201 2 grand jury inv estigation by
pretending to represent a witness who had been called to testify , then claiming in a letter to the U.S.
Attorney 's Office that she would assert her Fifth Amendment rights. The falsified letter prompted
prosecutors to cancel the witness's grand jury appearance, the charges alleged.
In addition, the charges alleged that Brindley filed a false status report in 201 0 before St. Ev e claiming
that a client awaiting sentencing on child pornography charges was so sick after receiv ing the wrong
medication at the Metropolitan Correctional Center that he was unable to participate in a crucial meeting,
ev en leav ing the room twice to v omit.
A day later after v ideo ev idence prov ed the incident nev er occurred Brindley filed a "Statement of
Correction" telling the judge he'd "only glanced" at the status document after Thompson prepared it and
did not realize it contained factual errors. Brindley said he "should hav e taken the time to actually read
the document carefully , but ... did not do so," court records show.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-lawyers-indicted-met-20150116-story.html
(Page 157 of Total)

1/3
1/18/2015
USCApracticing
Case #14-5265
Document
#1532722
Filed:for01/19/2015
Page
2 of 3of
In a decade
law in Chicago,
the Iowa
nativ e drew attention
his impassioned
adv ocacy
downtrodden clients and his sometimes offbeat arguments. But he also has drawn heat from judges who
questioned his honesty . Last February , appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook ripped Brindley for deceiv ing
the court during an argument, fined him $2,000 and threatened him with disbarment.
The inv estigation into Brindley 's activ ities unfolded in July when the FBI raided Brindley 's law office in
Chicago's historic Monadnock Building across from the federal courthouse, taking client files and
computer records.
Brindley was initially indicted in August on charges that alleged he coached a witness to lie in a single
2009 drug conspiracy case. That witness, Marina Collazo, pleaded guilty in Nov ember to testify ing
falsely , say ing she did so at Brindley 's behest.
The probe has had a ripple effect at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, where Brindley has dozens of cases
awaiting trial or on appeal. Following the raid, the 7 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that each of
Brindley 's clients be notified of the federal inv estigation so they could be asked if they wanted a different
attorney , a process that has been repeated after charges were handed down.
Brindley ev en made a recent appearance on a case in front of U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber, the
same judge who he's scheduled to be arraigned before on Wednesday on his own charges, records show.
jmeisner@tribpub.com
Tw itter @jmetr22b
Copyright 2015, Chicago Tribune
FROM AROUND THE WEB
Sponsored Links by Taboola
Car Insurance Agents Hate This One Trick

Insure.com
Please Dont Retire At 62. Heres Why.

The Motley Fool
14 Senior Benefits Most Seniors Arent Taking Advantage Of

New sm ax
Six Ways to Help Expand Your Government Sales

Am erican Express OPEN
8 Interesting Facts About Urine

HealthCentral.com
Who'da Thunk It? 15 Black Women We're Surprised Dated/Married White Men
(Page 158 of Total)

2/3
1/18/2015
MadamUSCA
eNoire
Case #14-5265
Document #1532722
Filed: 01/19/2015
Page 3 of 3
What Does Your Last Name Say About You

Ancestry
Bizarre Celebrity Baby Names

Tim e Warner Cable Central
(Page 159 of Total)

3/3

Robert Rasmussen, Robert B. Glenn Charged With INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Robert Rasmussen, Robert B. Glenn Charged With INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

USCA Case #14-5265

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

USCA Case #14-5265

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to

Firm Chairman Beau Grenier Interviewed in

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Welcomes

Firm Chairman Beau Grenier w as recently interview ed in the

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to announce that Phillip

Birmingham Business Journal, follow ing the firms tenth consecutive

E. Walker has joined the firms Nashville office as a partner and

year ranked as Birminghams largest law firm. The articles author

member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. He w as previously

a shareholder w ith the law firm Patterson Intellectual Property Law ,

BBJs] list of Most Admired Companies in 2014 and w as one of the

few firms that prospered during the recession.

Beau Grenier. He is a talented law yer w ith great skills and a

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

and our clients.

Eight Shareholders selected to the 2014 Florida Super Lawyers List

USCA Case #14-5265

100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1300, Tampa, FL 33602

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Eight Shareholders selected to the 2014 Florida Super Lawyers List

Copyright 2015 Glenn Rasmussen, P.A.

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

JENNINGS, STROUSS, & SALMON, P.L.C.

THOMAS, THOMAS & MARKSON, P.C.

consider a real estate agents inequitable conduct in deciding

We conclude that the

agents inequitable acts may be imputed to the principal whether

Daniel Harvey listed ten acres of land in Tonopah for

Through his agent, Charles Harrison, Ivo Queiroz offered

to purchase the land, along with an additional ten acres.

purchase offer called for a $1,000 earnest-money payment and a

finance the balance of $82,000.

The proposed purchase price

A counteroffer, faxed the next

Harvey and his agent became concerned about Queirozs

Because this case was tried to the bench and findings of

failure to deposit the earnest money.

Repeated efforts to reach

Finally, on Friday of that week,

Either that night or the next day, Harrison learned

that Harvey had cancelled the contract.

next Monday morning, Harrison took two money orders amounting to

Several hours later,

Harveys written notice of the cancellation arrived at another

Harveys agent returned

Harrisons earnest money, informing him that the contract had

Queiroz sued Harvey, seeking specific performance of

The superior court found that Harrison had acted

inequitably and thus denied Queiroz specific performance.

court determined that Harrison lied about the source of the

, 18, 22, P.3d at __.

Queiroz, Ariz. at , 25, 31, __ P.3d

Queiroz, Ariz. at _, 29-30, P.3d at .