STATE OF GEORGIA

FULTONCOUNTY SUPERIO R COURT CASE NO.: 2009-CV-177099 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) FIRST AMENDED ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC ) HOME LOANS SERVICING,LP,fka ) COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS ) SERVICING, LP; GREENPOINT ) MORTGAG E FUNDING, INC. and ) MORTGAG E ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________) BARBARA GO RANSSO N Plaintiffs Barbara Goransson, Pro Se, sues Defendants Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and alleges as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Barbara Goransson is a natural person over the age of eighteen (18) and is otherwise sui juris and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and is the owner of the subject property located in Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BOA) is a national banking association engaged in the business of mortgage lending and doing business in

the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter BAC) is a limited partnership engaged in mortgage Lending and doing business in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (hereinafter GreenPoint) is a corporation engaged in the business of mortgage lending and doing business in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant GreenPoint was the originator of the subject loan transaction in this cause. 5. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS) is a corporation engaged in the business of the registration of mortgages doing business in Fulton County, Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

II.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The property which is the subject matter of this action is located in Fulton, County, Georgia identified as 84 Cleveland Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30315. Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this Court as the subject property is located in Fulton County, Georgia, Plaintiffowns the property in Fulton County,

Georgia and the subject transaction occurred in Fulton County, Georgia. 7. All acts complained of occurred in Fulton County, Georgia. COUNT I--FRAUD 8. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraph 1-7 above and incorporates same by reference into this Count.

9. On or about June 26, 2003, Plaintiff and DefendantGreenPointengaged in a real estate closing transaction concerning the subject property where Plaintiff wasnamedas Borrower, and Defendant GreenPointwas named asLender and Defendant MERS was named nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns under the Security Deed. 10. Said transaction was fraudulent, and plaintiff was defrauded in the following respects, set forth below. 11. DefendantGreenPoint, was the only party listed as secured party in the original paperwork at closing, and never disclosed to Plaintiff that their promissory Note and Mortgage had been sold and that Defendant BAC and Defendant BOA and that Defendant GreenPoint had been paid in full for the amount of the Note plus a fee to stand in for the aforementioned undisclosed third parties,

Defendants BAC and BOA and that GreenPointhad been paid either before or contemporaneously with the closing of the transaction. 12. Defendant GreenPointnever disclosed that it had not loaned its own funds to fund the fraudulent transaction and that they had used the Plaintiffs Promissory Note to generate or create the funds to fund the transaction from the other Defendants and in turn used Plaintiffs promissory note to leverage additional loans and investments for which Defendants GreenPoint, BAC and BOArealized substantial profit. 13. The amount of profit from the use of Plaintiffs promissory Note, used without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent, was never disclosed by any of the Defendants toPlaintiff. 14. Defendants GreenPointnever disclosed the true identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. Defendant BAC allegedly received an assignment of the Note and Mortgage dated November 3, 2009 but said assignment is from Defendant MERS to Defendant BAC and is fraudulent because Defendant MERS does not and cannot own or hold any interest in any Noteor mortgage because it owns nothing and is merely a registration system for the registration of mortgages by its members. Defendant MERS cannot assign any interest in the subject Note and Mortgage because it has no interest

in the subject Note and Mortgage, and cannot assign that which it does not own. 15. Defendants BAC and BOA have never produced the original Note. Said Note has never been produced by these Defendants to Plaintiff despite numerous requests to verify that Defendants BAC and BOA have actual physical possession of the original wet ink promissory Note signed by Plaintiff at closing. 16. Defendant GreenPointhad Plaintiff execute the Note, Mortgage and other closing documents under false pretenses, never disclosing to Plaintiff that Defendants had been paid and would use Plaintiffs executed note to generate additional profit for Defendants without any disclosure whatsoever to Plaintiffs and never disclosing the identity of the true owner and holder of the original Note and mortgage. 17.

Defendants BAC and BOA may also be acting as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and/or as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) which became an alleged successor in interest to the originator, Defendants issuing securities collateralized by the mortgageunder a master pooling and servicing agreement by which all legal and equitable interest was transferred to the certificate holders. This entire process, known as the securitization process, was never disclosed to Plaintiff at any time before, during or after the closing of

the fraudulent transaction. All named Defendants participated in the securitization scheme and profited therefrom. 18. Because the note and mortgage were securitized, as set forth above, securitization created restrictions upon modification of the mortgage which had not been approved by the mortgagor, Plaintiff herein. Securitization also converted the mortgage note from an alienable, transferable instrument which was and could be sold into an instrument which cannot be sold, transferred or alienated without amending the terms and conditions of the mortgage. None of these changes or restrictions were ever disclosed to Plaintiff at any time before, during or after the fraudulent transaction. 19. By securitizing Plaintiffs Note and Mortgage without Plaintiffs knowledge and consent, Defendants defrauded Plaintiff. 20. The aforementioned actions by Defendantswere done willfully, wantonly, intentionally and without regard for the truth and without disclosure to Plaintiff. Had the true facts been disclosed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have entered into the fraudulent transaction. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the superior knowledge of the originating lender and other real estate professionals, which reliance was justifiable under the circumstances, because Plaintiff could not have learned the true facts by herself under the circumstances. 21.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff have been damaged financially, including but not limited to her down payment, closing costs, prepaid items, interest and other financial costs and damages.

W HEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for actual, compensatory, consequential and exemplary damages, cost of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

COUNT II-WRONGFUL INSTITUTION OF NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PRO CEEDING 22. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-21 above and Incorporates same by reference into this Count. 23. On or about October 27, 2009, Defendants BOA and/or BAC by and through their attorneys, McCalla, Raymer, LLC, commenced a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding pursuant to Georgia law by causing to have advertised a Notice of Sale Under Power. 24. O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-162.2 requires that the notice of sale under power be sent to the debtor by the secured creditor. 25. Defendants BOA and BAC are not a secured creditor within the meaning of the statute because the assignment from Defendant MERS to Defendant BAC was fatally defective in that Defendant MERS had no secured

interest capable of being assigned to Defendant BAC.The secured creditor holding a security interest as set forth on the closing documents is Defendant GreenPoint. Defendants BAC and BOA were not listed in any of the closing documents and as stated above the assignment from Defendant MERS to Defendant BAC was fatally defective and flawed in that Defendant MERS had no secured interest to assign. Further, the letter from Defendant BOAs attorney McCallaRaymer never mentioned Defendant BAC, only Defendant BOA. Therefore, neither Defendant BOA or Defendant BAC were proper secured creditors within the meaning of the of the statute, O.C.G.A. Section 44-14162.2 and the non-judicial foreclosure was wrongful and illegal by law. 26. Further, because Defendants BAC and BOA did not hold the original promissory note and was not the grantee under the Security Deed when nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were instituted and the Notice of Sale Under Power sent, the prerequisites to a non-judicial sale of the subject property were not complied with, making the institution of this non-judicial foreclosure proceeding wrongful and illegal. 27 As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants BOA and BAC Plaintiffs has been damaged, including the loss of her property and other financial damages. W HEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for the wrongful institution of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, costs of this action,

and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

COUNT III-UNJUST ENRICHMENT

28. Plaintiff re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 and incorporate same by reference into this Count. 29. Defendants, by engaging in fraudulent conduct have been unjustly enriched at Plaintiffs expense. 30. Defendants, by using Plaintiffs promissory note without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent and by leveraging Plaintiffs note to create additional funds, loans and investments and to realize a substantial profit, without disclosing the true facts to Plaintiff, have been unjustly enriched. 31. Defendants, by fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs into executing the subject promissory note and other loan documents by failing to disclose all of the relevant facts, have unjustly enriched themselves at Plaintiffs expense. 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been damaged. 33.

W HEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for Actual, compensatory, consequential and exemplary damages, costs of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

COUNT IV-RESCISSION 34. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1-33 and incorporate same by reference into this Count. 35. By defrauding Plaintiff into going forward with the fraudulent real estate transaction as more fully set forth above, Defendants are liable for nondisclosure, fraud, false pretenses and misrepresentation against Plaintiff. 36 Due to the fraudulent real estate transaction, Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the transaction and to be placed back into the position she occupied prior to the transaction occurring. Plaintiff did not learn of the aforementioned fraudulent acts of Defendant until sometime after viewing the fraudulent assignment from Defendant MERS to Defendant BAC dated November 3, 2009, which was not discovered by Plaintiff until sometime later.

37. Plaintiffs obligation to tender, if any, the loan proceeds is conditioned upon the Defendant fully performing upon rescission of the loan transaction by returning

10

to Plaintiff all moniespaid by Plaintiff, including but not limited to, the Plaintiffs down payment, all closing costs, fees paid to third parties, and all interest paid on the subject loantransaction from the date of closing to the present.

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffis entitled to rescind the subject fraudulent transaction. W HEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendants for rescission of the subject transaction and pray that this Honorable Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

COUNT VDECLARATORY RELIEF 39. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 and incorporates same by reference into this Count. 40. This is an action for declaratory relief which is being brought pursuant to O.G.C.A. sec. 9-4-2 and sec. 9-11-118 to declare Defendantsto have no legal right in the subject Note and Security Deed for purposes of foreclosure due to Defendants fraud, wrongful institution of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, unjust enrichment, rescission of the transaction by Plaintiffs, all of which is set forth with more particularity in the foregoing Counts I-IV of this Complaint.

41.

11

O.C.G.A. sec. 9-4-2(a) provides that the superior courts shall have the power, upon appropriate pleading, to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed, and that the declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment. 42. O.C.G.A. sec. 9-4-2(c) provides that relief by declaratory judgment shall be available notwithstanding the fact that the complaining party has any other adequate legal or equitable remedies. 43. As set forth above, the evidence of the record demonstrates that Defendants have committed fraud, wrongfully instituted non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, unjustly enriched themselves and that the transaction should be rescinded and that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief. 44. The declaration by this Court that the Defendant does not have the right to institute and maintain the foreclosure sale due to its violation of the law is a proper subject matter for declaratory relief.

W HEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court adjudge that Defendants do not have the right to institute and maintain the foreclosure sale of the subject Property due to Defendants fraud, wrongful institution of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, unjust enrichment, and that the transaction

12

should be rescinded and that the Court should declare the respective rights and obligations of the parties, and that Plaintiffs recover costs of this action, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, appropriate and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable by law.

VERIFICATION The undersigned Plaintiff verify, under oath, that the foregoing factual allegations in this Verified Complaint are true and correct.

___________________________ Barbara Goransson Plaintiff, Pro Se PO Box 3554 Tequesta, FL 33469 Phone: 404-688-7421

13

STATE OF FLORIDA

) :ss COUNTY OF PALM BEACH)

BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, personally appeared Barbara Goransson who is personally known to me or who has produced__________________________ (type of identification) and who, after being duly sworn, verified that the factual allegations in the foregoing Verified Complaint are true and correct and who placed her hand and signature above this ____day of June, 2010.

________________________ Notary Public State of Florida My commission expires:

CERTIFICATION

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES that the undersigned, prior to the filing of this Verified Complaint, gave written notice by fax to Aldridge Connors, LLP, attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. by Facsimile at (678) 510-7477 and further requested, by phone at (678) 8943411 that said Defendants attorney stipulate and agree to allow me to amend my Complaint and to Add Additional Parties and that no response to said written notice by facsimile or spoken request for a postponement of the

14

foreclosure sale has been received through the date of this Certification. SO CERTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF BARBARA GORANSSON this ___day of June, 2010. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Barbara Goransson, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 3484 Tequesta, FL 33469 Phone: (404) 688-7421

15

STATE OF GEORGIA
FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR CO URT CASE NO.: 2009-CV-177099 BARBARA GO RANSSO N, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC ) HOME LOANS SERVICING,LP, fka ) COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS ) SERVICING, LP; GREENPOINT ) MORTGAG E FUNDING, INC. and ) MORTGAG E ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

AMENDED LIS PENDENS

TAKE NOTICE that Barbara Goransson shall file the above-entitled action In the above-entitled Court on June_____, 2010 by Barbara Goransson against Bank of America, N.A.; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP; GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants. The action affects title to the specific real property and the right to possession of specific real property identified in the Complaint. The specific real property affected by the action is located in Fulton County, Georgia, and is described as follows:

16

84 Cleveland Avenue SE, Atlanta, GA 30315 Dated June ____, 2010. _____________________________ Barbara Goransson, Plaintiff Pro Se

ACKNOW LEDGEMENT

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____day of June, 2010.

_____________________________ Notary Public In and for the State of Florida My Commission expires: (seal)

17