COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2009-CA-000058-MR ) APPELLANT ) APPEAL FROM THE ) HENRY CIRCUIT COURT VS ) CASE NO.

07-CI-368 ) HONORABLE KAREN ) CONRAD PRESIDING DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL ) TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR ) THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF ) SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST ) 2005-OPT4, ASSET BACKED ) CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT4 ) ) APPELLEE) ********************* *APPELLANT'S BRIEF* ********************* I certify that true and accurate copies of this Appellant's Brief have been mailed to the below named parties via US Post first class prepaid mail, and additionally that five (5) true and accurate copies of this Appellant's Brief, with Appendix, have been hand delivered to Clerk, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 360 Democrat Drive, Frankfort, KY 40601 on this 10th day of August 2009. I further certify that on June 25, 2009, the Record on Appeal was returned to the Henry County Circuit Court Clerk, pursuant to CR 76.12. GLENN AUGENSTEIN

Lori Leach PO Box 5480 Cin. OH 45201-5480 Valerie Van Valkenberg PO Box 5480 Cin. OH 45201-5480 Respectfully Submitted ___________________ Glenn Augenstein 932 Wooded Hills Road Pendleton, KY 40055 502-743-0504

INTRODUCTION This is a mortgage foreclosure case in which Appellant appeals from the decision of Henry Circuit Court granting summary judgment to Appellee. Appellant also appeals from the decision of Henry Circuit Court overruling Appellant's motion under CR 59.05. The case is, to Appellant's knowledge, a case of first impression to the Kentucky Court of Appeals that involves subject matter jurisdiction, constitutional standing and evidentiary standards in regard to foreclosure.

STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant does not desire oral argument. This case can be decided upon a review of the record and the clearly applicable law.

ii

STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT 1. The Court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Appellee's conspicuous lack of standing. Privett v. Clendenin, 52 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Ky. [2001]). Kentucky Constitution, Bill of Rights 14 Kentucky Constitution, 112(5) West v. Commonwealth, Ky., 887 S.W.2d 338, 341 (Ky. [1994]) Cann v. Howard, 850 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Ky. App. [1993]) Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824); see, e.g., Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93, n. 1 (1957); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-290 (1938). From Justice Scalias concurring opinion in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49; 108 S. Ct. 376; 98 L. Ed. 2d 306; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 5030 (U.S. 1987). 1(a).The Court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the Plaintiffs only evidence indicates acquisition of the alleged indebtedness after commencement of the suit. Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. App. [2005]). Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Byrd, 2008 Ohio 4603, 897 N.E.2d 722, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3874 (Oh. App. 3rd Dist., 2008). 1(b). The Court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss for lack iii 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 6 i ii iii 1 4

of subject matter jurisdiction where the record is devoid of any evidence Appellee is the owner and holder of the promissory note. KRS 355.3-201 & 3-203 Cumberland Bank & Trust Co. v. Buchanan (two cases), 291 Ky. 300; 164 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. [1942]) Vitols v. The Citizens Banking Company, 10 F.3d 1227; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 30953 (6th Cir., 1993) Commerce Union Bank v. Seese, 237 Ky. 384; 35 S.W.2d 544; (Ky. App. [1933]) Foster's Admr. v. Metcalfe, 144 Ky. 385; 138 S.W. 314; (Ky. App. [1911]) 2. The Court erred in failing to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 17.01 based upon the Appellees failure to show that it was the real party in interest CR 17.01 Stuart v. Richardson, 407 S.W.2d 716, 717 (Ky. 1966); Brandon v. Combs, 666 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Ky. App. 1983) Harris v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 297 (Ky. [2006]) 3. The Court erred in granting the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Steelvest v Scansteel, 807 S.W.2d 476, 482 (Ky. [1991]) Hallahan v. The Courier Journal, 138 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Ky. App. [2004]) Hallahan, 138 S.W.3d at 705. Catron v Citizens Union Bank, 229 S.W.3d 54 (Ky. App. [2006]). Pile v City of Brandenberg, 215 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. [2006]).

8 8 8 9 9 9

10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

3(a). The court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment to Appellee when essential facts were unsupported by any summary judgment evidence. 12 3(b).The court erred in granting summary judgment to Appellee when all essential elements necessary to a summary judgment in foreclosure were at least in dispute. 4. The Court erred in finding that the Plaintiff was the owner and the holder of the mortgage when the Plaintiff's own submissions prove the contrary. Collins v. Duff, 283 S.W.2d 179, 183 (Ky. 1955). Osborne v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 185 S.W.3d 645, 650-1; 2006 Ky. LEXIS 50 (Ky. [2006]). 5. The court erred in finding that Appellee had satisfied 14

13

15

conditions precedent. CR 56.01 KRE 902(11) 6. KRS Chapter 324A KRS Chapter 322 7. The court erred by admitting into evidence unauthenticated copies of documents that did not comply with Kentucky Rules of Evidence and under circumstances impermissible by the Rules of Civil Procedure. CR 6.04 CR56.03 CR 56.05 KRE 902(11)(A)(B)(C) Matthews v. Commonwealth,163 S.W.3d 11, 27 (Ky.[2005]) ICC v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913); Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 103-104 (1963). Goldberg v. Kelly, No. 62, 397 U.S. 254; 90 S. Ct. 1011; 25 L. Ed. 2d 287; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 80 (U.S. 1970 8. The court erred in denying the Appellant's Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate, pursuant to CR 59.05

15 15 16 17 17

The court erred in finding that the subject property was indivisible. 16

18 18 19 20 20 21

22 23 25

CONCLUSION